|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 812
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 4:44 pm: |       |
Hi Leanne, Glenn
Leanne, I dare say there were lots of people going to the police on the off chance they might strike it lucky and pull the Ripper out of the hat. But I still believe that if Stride or Eddowes thought they knew who Jack was, they'd have gone to the police or Press. After which, they wouldn't have thought "Oh dear, it might take some time. I think I'll try a spot of blackmail while I'm waiting." This would have been crazy. Apart from the terrible risk to themselves, they might even have panicked Jack into fleeing the area - the reward receding into the distance with him.
I don't have either Stride's or Eddowes's brain down as being in the Marie Curie class, but I don't think they were stupid either.
Glenn, good to see you back, and hope you enjoyed your holiday.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 4:57 pm: | |
Glenn, may just be personal preference when it comes to where I would set up an ambush. Given that I have to use a knife as he did, stealth woudld be paramount. I much more prefer the darkened corner of a house than the teamings of a club. Once strike and the kill is over with little or no comotion, and if discovered I only have to deal with one person unless the alarm is sounded. In a yard such as Dutfields, I would have as the police did, a crowd there in minutes if not sooner and my change of escape would be far less. Dressed in dull coloured clothing I can blend in much easier where there are houses and pathways between them, than on a street designed for comerece. Some would see the noise of the club as a distraction away from the crime, but look at what happened, Israel still saw what happened and if the guy had any guts he might have collected the reward... |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 262
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Robert!
Thank you very much. I had a splendid time, thanks for asking -- I really needed some time off from work. I see there have been a lot of action here on the board in the mean-time, but I'll try to keep up, if I get the time. Nice to hear from you.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 263
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Once again, the corner in the yard on Hanbury Street wasn't dark, it was actually daylight... Besides, if there already are commosion elsewhere nearby, people will most likely not be that easily aware of the commosion made by your victim if she would happen to scream.
I for my part don't think a dark yard in the middle of the night is riskier than a murder committed in daylight right beneath over ten residents and the possibility that any one of them could come stumbling into the scene at any moment. But that's just me...
Yes, I believe personal preferences has a bit to do with how we interpret the risk situations on the crime scenes, but I can't say you've managed to prove that Dutfield's Yard is that more different or more risky compared to the other sites.
If you with "Israel" mean Schwartz, so -- No! I don't believe he saw what happened. I don't believe for a minute the man he saw was the killer or the Ripper (depending on what you choose), but that is a discussion that's been raving on to the point where we probably won't get any further, since we don't have enough information.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 11:47 pm: | |
Glenn, Sunrise on the day Annie was murdered was at 05:12. Which is the time it first breaks the horizion, not the first time light makes its way into the back yard which would come some time later. The killer was swift enough to take Annie's life before she had a chance to raise any alarm and escape without any detection, same as Buck's Row and Mitre Square.
The killer in Berner Street was seen; if not by Israel as I believe, then by one of the others who testified at her inquest. Dutfields yard was not dark. It was lighted from the Workingman's club and a street light. It was light enough for several people to identlfy Liz as the one they saw that night; which also indicates that a number of people were in the area at that time of night.
Buck's Row, 29 Hanbury, and Mitre Square are no where near as lighted, or traveled during the night as Berner Street.
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 264
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
That may be true, I can't with certainty state the amount of daylight in Hanbury Street, but it still was daybreak -- there is a considerable difference compared to nighttime, especially if we consider that this is the time that the neighbourhood is beginning to come to life -- the hours when people are getting out of bed and are on their way to work are particulary risky to committ a murder in.
Regarding the Stride murder much is of course depending on how one looks upon it, that is if it's a Ripper murder and if the killer/the Ripper is identical with the Schwartz man. I think she was killed by the Ripper, and that the Schwartz man had nothing to do with it. So no, I don't believe the killer in Dutfield's Yard was seen at all.
Then you are totally wrong in your description of Dutfield's Yard. Several witness accounts lets us know that the yard was VERY dark -- Diemschutz even had to light a match to see anything at all. The light from the windows of the Working Men's Club are a total misconception and falacy. They didn't light up the yard! At most, they would have lit up the walls and buildings nearby but it is quite impossible for the light to shed any light whatsoever on the yard itself. It's all a miscalculation and the witness accounts make this totally clear; not only Diemschutz had problems seing anything, the other witnesses who came out of the building when the murder was discovered hardly saw anything until someone struck a match or held a lamp. Numerous authors on the case has also stated the yard as a dark secluded spot. Let me take Sugden as an example. He says: "And the illumination from the upper storiey of the club fell not so much upon the court below as upon the cottages opposite. Furthermore, whatever benefits the club's side door, the cottages and the printing office conferred farther up the yard, they did little to penetrate the gloom immidiately within the gates." (Sugden 2002, p. 166)
I'd say it's an ideal murder site, especially with singing and "party noise" coming from the upper storey of the building to draw attention from the murder itself.
The fact that we have no witness statements of a man entering the street (on his way out of the yard after the murder) during that time makes Berner Street itself a bit of a problem. The murderer could have been hiding in the darkness of the yard and then snuck out on the other side of Diemschutz horse as the latter discovered or examined the body. But it doesen't explain the problem with the lack of sightings of such a man.
Furthermore, the fact that some people recognized Stride on Berner Street has nothing to do with the yard. You can't seriously mean that you think there was the same amount of light in the yard as on the street!
Regarding the crowd of people after the murder, we can also assume that these came from inside the Club and had come out as a result of the street commosion. That has nothing to do with what the street looked like in general -- this was a special occurence! Berner Street was also known as a quiet street, according to some witnesses.
So yes, Shannon. Dutfield's Yard was extremely dark -- you only have to look at the witness statements to find that out. The street could very well have been lit, but the yard was narrow and secluded and the witness statements we have also indicate that it was a dark passage. The weather was also rainy and grey, so there was no moon-light either. I don't know where you've got the impression that the yard was lighter than the other sites, but it is unfortunately a complete falacy, based on what we know so far.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:39 am: | |
Hi All,
From the Daily Telegraph's coverage of the Chapman inquest (emphasis mine):
John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4.45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
Richardson was sitting on those steps about 45 minutes before the killing occurred, and it was already light at that time.
Also, there were 17 people living at 29 Hanbury at the time of the murder, and both the common tap and common privy for the household was in that back yard. Any one of them could have entered the yard to use those facilities and seen the murderer at work, just as Cadoche nearly did.
I go along with Glenn on this one, IMO of all the murder sites the backyard at 29 Hanbury had to be the riskiest.
Best to all,
Jim |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 269
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:52 am: | |
Thank you, Jim. You actually managed to find a passage as well that I had over-looked. Good work.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 5:58 pm: | |
Leon Goldstein, the cigarette-maker who later came forward to police, was seen by Fanny Mortimer walking past the IWC shortly before or after (?) Stride's murder. His given address was 22 Christian Street, St. Georges. The 1891 census shows that Heinrich Otterstedt, a 42 year- old sugar refiner, lived there with his family. Interestingly, a Maurice Kosminski moved there in 1895. Maurice lived at 70 Berner Street, one and a half blocks south of the IWC in the 1891 census (RG 12, piece 284, folio 135, p.14) Probably a coincidence. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 271
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 6:40 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
Probably, but interesting nevertheless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ben Holland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:59 pm: | |
Don't you think that Stride was killed quickly by her killer because:
(1)The Ripper had been disturbed from the first part of his M.O. - strangulation, by Schwartz’s sudden appearance on the scene, and so quickly disposed of Stride using the second part of his M.O - slashing the throat, because she could compromise his identity if left go. After all she was talking to him face to face and he had been somewhat violent with her. A memorable experience for Stride to tell the police if she had have lived and of course if we are to take Schwartz’s witness testimony as somewhat truthful (but maybe not precise as we have all learned from witness testimony experiments).
(2)She had made enough noise to compromise the safety of their location so that he could not complete or did not want to complete the third part of his M.O - the mutilation.
(3)Was the alley too dark to perform his full M.O.? Maybe this was why Schwartz saw the man pulling her out onto the street? [I am little confused as to how the ripper committed many of his crimes in the darkness? Maybe some of the experts can enlighten me a little more here! At 1am Diemschutz discovered Stride in the yard but would not have noticed the body for his Pony sensing the corpse. He felt the corpse with his whip and had to get help but did they need a lantern to see the body or was Diemschutz a little dull sighted?]
I am not entirely convinced that the Ripper was around when Diemschutz came across Stride because that would leave the killer with roughly 45 minutes to get all the way to Mitre Square, FIND a new victim, a LOCATION for the crime and COMPLETE his M.O with Eddowes before she was found.
For this reason I believe that Schwartz had seen the killer and witnessed the beginning of Stride's demise at the hands of the Ripper.
The location for Stride’s murder is also very interesting. A Jewish area, next to a Jewish men’s club, while screaming an insult intended towards something or someone Jewish - “Lipsky!” - be that either at Stride, Schwartz or second man Schwartz had seen. Plus the alleged Ripper graffiti found soon after the double murder which referred to “Juwes”.
Any thoughts on this?
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Whoever suggested entering Duttfields yard,Mitre Square,29 Hanbury street or Bucks Row,only one person chose those places to murder another person.Only one person accepted and knew of the risks present at that time and place.That he was successful on each occassion suggests that the risks were minimal.
Daylight or darkness,the requirements of privacy and isolation are evident,as the killer was neither seen nor heard,nor were his movements afterwards noted or perceived.
Could one carry out such undertakings without some specialised knowledge of the area in which he was operating?.I do not think so.Was Millers Court a more secure situation than the other sites?.Not neccessarily,as in all cases he did not operate under the eyes of an audience,and although I am sure he was seen prior to at least four of the crimes,his behaviour was such that there was no cause for those observing him to take special note,and for his part no cause to fear they could later be his downfall.
My opinion and my opinion only,is that his biggest risk was to kill indoors.Though this may have been from neccessity or some uncontrolably urge or both,I feel that the evidence and events surrounding this crime,narrows the possible list of suspects to no more than two,Hutchinson or Barnett,and particularly so to the first named.
One thing I do agree with is that the term prostitute as applied to the victims is wrong.A prostitute,in my opinion,is a person who offers their body for sexual purposes,for a given time,for a set amount of money,and is their main source of income.There is no evidence that the Whitechapel victims did this.
|
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 3:35 am: | |
This is probably worth a new thread just for the subject matter which is purely speculative.
Basically, my question is, what would Jack have done if anyone had stumbled upon him committing his work?
Granted any answers will be in the purely speculative realm but if any of you have guesses that would be interesting.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
"...what would Jack have done if anyone had stumbled upon him committing his work?"
>>I don't believe he was at all prepared for this. It seems to me that he only did what he did because he was certain he wouldn't be seen at work. If he had been seen, I think that would have been a whole 'nother thing for him. I don't think he would have reacted the way we would consider Jack the Ripper to react, based on the sum of all we think we know today about Jack the Ripper. I think he maybe would have reacted like someone else. This might be anything from breaking down and crying about his misfortune, to callously walking away with a shrug, to threatening or attacking the person who came upon him, to trying to sweet talk his way out of the matter somehow, or some combination of the above, or something else entirely. Whatever he thought he was doing by committing the murders, however, I think he'd stop thinking that way the minute he were "stumbled upon."
"I feel that the evidence and events surrounding this crime [Miller's Court,] narrows the possible list of suspects to no more than two,Hutchinson or Barnett,and particularly so to the first named."
>>No sense can be made of this. What evidence do you have to exclude eveyone else?
Saddam
|
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:04 pm: | |
Jim / Glenn, how is it John Anderson was able to see into the back part of the house 30 minutes before the sun came up at 05:12? Curious...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 33
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 4:44 am: | |
Glenn: "So yes, Shannon. Dutfield's Yard was extremely dark -- you only have to look at the witness statements to find that out. The street could very well have been lit, but the yard was narrow and secluded and the witness statements we have also indicate that it was a dark passage. The weather was also rainy and grey, so there was no moon-light either. I don't know where you've got the impression that the yard was lighter than the other sites, but it is unfortunately a complete falacy, based on what we know so far."
From the gated entrance on Berner to the side entrance of the Workingman's club is 18 feet, and the side to side distance from the club to the dwellings to the south is 9 feet. This is not much more than an average size living room. According to witness William Wess, "on returning to the yard I observed that the double door at the entrance was open. There is no lamp in the yard, and none of the street lamps light it, so that the yard is only lit by the lights through the windows at the side of the club and of the tenements opposite. As to the tenements, I only observed lights in two first-floor windows. There was also a light in the printing- office, the editor being in his room reading."
[Coroner] " When you entered the yard, if any person had run out you would have seen them in the dark? - [Louis Diemschultz] Oh, yes, it was light enough for that. It was dark in the gateway, but not so dark further in the yard.
There was a meeting held Saturday night/early Sunday morning, afterwhich "From twenty to thirty members remained, some staying in the lecture-room and the others going downstairs. Of those upstairs a few continued the discussion, while the rest were singing. The windows of the lecture-room were partly open."
With the number of people present, the fact that the meeting had just broken up and the people would be coming out of the club in small groups as the discussions completed, and you can see that the area was not "extremely dark," nor was it as secluded as believed.
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 283
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:25 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
You don't give up easily, do you? 
Seriously, the murder happened just inside the gateway, where it was much darker than in the rest of the yard, as Diemschutz say. The light from the door-way of the printing office, which was at the back of the club, wouldn't be of much use there either. And the fact that it is a narrow area only makes it even more unrealistic for the lights from the windows to light up the court itsef. Between the gate entrance and the door to the club was a only a brick wall on ground floor level. And as your own quote indicate: "There is no lamp in the yard and none of the street lamps lit it". But near the entrance of the gate there were no windows that could have lit up the yard, as far as I know. So I'd say the yard was extremely dark, and I'm actually not the only one pushing that opinion.
You must also consider the fact that indoor-light in the 19th century meant gas lamps or candles, and in my own experiences they actually hardly give any light at all, compared to our standards and certainly not the fist of the two (as many seem to believe).
I can admit that it indeed can be considered risky performing a murder just inside a gateway facing the street, but I don't find this riskier than the yard in Hanbury Street or compared to may outdoor murder sites in general. I really don't see your point with "the number of people present"; during the time of the murder the meeting was still going on so most of the members or visitors were still inside the club, occupied with the activities inside. You make it sound as hords of people was coming out of the club during the estimated time of the murder, which -- of course -- is to stretch both the facts and the truth in a questionable way. We have no witness statements indicating that a lot of people were coming out of the club during this time and not that much in the street either.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
Glenn, there were 2 of the lower level windows lit from the buildings on the south side if the yard, and [Wess] "A discussion was proceeding in the lecture-room, which has three windows overlooking the courtyard. From ninety to 100 persons attended the discussion, which terminated soon after half-past eleven."
So, at 11:30 that evening there were nearly 100 people in the club. At the time of the murder there were according to the constable about 30 still in the yard and another 15 - 20 in the club; which is still a considerable number given the size of the yard. As others have pointed out, the beer hall on the end of the block was probably closed and there are not that many who live in the yard, so the majority of those present came from the club.
I dont see it as stretching the facts, I see it as objectivily looking at the crime scene and surrounding area to really see what was happening and how it matches up with the other crime scenes. Just methodical police work. If you only chose the facts that support your theory then you miss the reality of what happened and fall into the same trap the PC's did in 1888 and the mystery goes unsolved... |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 287
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 9:40 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
"If you only chose the facts that support your theory then you miss the reality of what happened..."
And you mean that's what you're not trying to do...?
I could of course be wrong about the two windows on the floor level, but I've actually read at least twice that the house wall on this spot was nothing but an empty wall. I once again choose to quote Sugden (since I have lended out my other Ripper books for the moment):
"Here for a distance of some eighteen feet from the street, anuone entering the yard had to pass between the dead walls of Nos. 40 and 42. Here, after sunset, the darkness was almost absolute."
I can't garantee of course that Sugden, or many other authors on the matter, isn't "stretching the facts" in an extreme way or are wrong in their estimatings, but I think not.
About the people coming from the club; so why don't we have any actual witnesses mentioning all those people? Joseph Lave said the "street was calm"; Morris Eagle doesn't mention any hords of people at this actual time, neither do Mrs Mortimer etc. Where are they, Shannon?
And if that was the case, do you think anybody would have committed a murder under such circumstances, regardless if it was the Ripper or not? You have no facts comfirming that the street or the yard was full of people during the time of the murder, only an estimated time of the closing of the debate in the club. The rest is all construction and speculation.
You also seem to totally disegard those wintesses who claim that this part of the yard was dark, for example Diemschutz and Morris Eagle (the latter said that this part of the yard was too dark for anyone seeing something on the ground with certainty), among others. There are numerous people saying the same thing, not to mention all the more experienced authors on the case. Do you mean that all these people are wrong or lying? (I'm not accusing you of anything, but what did you say about looking objectively at the facts...?).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 9:42 am: | |
G'day Billy,
I think the Ripper could have got away by acting like everyone else: shocked, seemingly frightened, normal. In 1888, no one knew what a persons mind was capable of. They didn't know about the seven phases that a serial murderer passes through.
If he hid further back in the yard until enough curious people had gathered to the scene, do you think he could have blended in, then perhaps said he'd go and fetch a policeman? Would that have left him with enough time to rush off to Mitre Square?
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
Glenn, No, they are not "lying." Then as now, even an eye witness is not the perfect witness to the crime. You have to take what every witness says, and take it in the context they meant, not just words on a page. Second, you have to take it in the text of the day, not in the modern interpretation.
As you yourself have pointed out. You said the yard was "extremely dark." You are quoting another since you weren’t there to see for yourself. That to me is second hand information that is based on another's interpretation of the facts that you have accepted.
I question when logic dictates a deviation from what is the norm (not the accepted norm, case in point, a Roman gladiator is given a "thumbs up" by the emperor with his opponent on the ground, does he let him live or die? In today’s world we believe he was to live, which is not the case. In Rome 2000 years ago the thumb up was an indication to pierce his heart not let him live).
In 1888 there are differences in language from the east end to the west end, and within the east end there is a street dialect that the police are not that familiar with (same as in the USA with the language of the ghetto and the LA law enforcement not understanding). The words you read on the reports are in English; however, they are in English that is slightly different from what you were taught. John Kelly referred to Kate having to "walk the street" and some have assumed she was a prostitute street walker. Minor correction, it means when she didn’t have money for a bed at the lodging house she wandered the streets looking for a place to sleep or took refuge in the casual ward).
In Dutfields yard the witnesses said it was light enough to see a body when you look from one direction to another. Louis light the match to see clearly, not that he couldn’t see at all. There is no way a vendor would bring a horse drawn cart with his wares on it through a totally dark passage and risk the horse and cart to a pot hole or missed wagon rut after the rain.
What I am getting at is that for the most part, yes it was dark, but no so dark as not to be able to see, and if you could see, you could be seen. The killer used the place just inside the gate to strike, but he had to have chosen his victim someplace else unless he just sat there in the dark and grabbed the first lone female walking through (which is very brazen if he didn’t know another person was coming by shortly after), so he had to have been with her on Berner street, and if so, someone may have seen them if only for a moment before he pulled her from the street into the dark to kill her. There were men from the club, the beer hall, and some that lived in the yard who were up and about at the time of the murder, so my guess is that someone saw something; perhaps not realizing or wanting to get involved, but with 100 people there at 11:30, and 50 or so there at the time of the murder or just after, someone may have, which means our "friend" was possibly spotted.
To me, the variation from the norm is in the size of the yard being as small as it was, reading from Sudgen and others you get the impression the yard was a lot larger that it is. In reality it is no bigger that a two car garage today and I find it difficult, not impossible, and just logically difficult to imagine an area that small with buildings on 3 sides two of which are lighted and at least one inhabited at the time of the murder and located in Berner street between a beer hall and a gentleman's club where any drunk could have pulled up in the dark to urinate at any moment, as being a place chosen by "Jack" to commit the crime.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 291
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Well, as you understand, neither of us have the possibility to visit Dutfield's Yard since it is totally blown away from the face of the Earth, so we are both left to evaluate and interpret the few facts we have. Maybe there is a possibility that there still exists detailed plans over the yard in question as it looked in 1888, but even if there were, I'm afraid I am not in the position to study them from where I sit, unless they figure in a book I haven't read or is displayed on the Internet in some way. It's funny that you try to teach me about carefulness regarding witness statements, because I am one of those who most strongly here during several discussions have argued that witness statements -- regardless if it's 1888 or today -- should be looked upon with some suspicion! You don't have to lecture me about that. The problem is that those are the only sources at least I have access to regarding Dutfield's Yard -- there is unfortunaltely no other way, at least for me, to study the yard's disposition and layout. But I wish there were, believe me! And that goes for the authors' interpretations as well!
You probably have misunderstood me regarding the size of the yard -- I have actually been trying to make a point of its narrowness and small size! And I actually think that gets me more convinced about the darkness of the place in question. Lights from the windows of the upper storey can't possibly fall into such a narrow court but on the buildings on the opposite side. I am no mathemathican, but I think that is quite elementary. You say that one must add up all the statements together and put them in a context, but even if you do that, Shannon (which by the way is a natural approach for me as a crime historian anyway), you will find that there is a great concistency in the witnesses' reports about the yard as a dark place. To claim anything else is to manipulate facts. I do agree that one should read between the lines, but not the extent that one tries to fit the facts into one's personal theory. I have no respect for norms in an academic sense, Shannon, I am actually used to work against them! So don't make me into one of those who take others words for granted, just because I quote them!
Once again, Shannon, we have several witness statements from different persons -- IF the place was widely frequented with people at that particular moment, don't you think that at least some of them should mention that? When a majority of the different sources either say that the street was calm or doesen't mention any crowds of people, why should we conclude anything else when we don't have any information? Then all that remain is guesswork and that is really not my cup of tea. Louis Diemchutz thought he saw a dark bundle, but had to strike a match to define its content (so did the other club members when they went outside to look after he had discovered the body). That indicates very dark circumstances to me, and quite sufficient in order to perform a murder without being seen, and also a verification of that the "window lights" are enormous exaggerations.
"There is no way a vendor would bring a horse drawn cart with his wares on it through a totally dark passage and risk the horse and cart to a pot hole or missed wagon rut after the rain."
Well, that is pure speculation (and I'm not even sure it is a valid or correct one) and -- I hate to break it to you -- but the streets and passages WAS dark in the 19th century -- even if they were lit up! And I tried earlier to point out to you the fact that gas light doesen't shed that much light, in fact it doesen't nearly light up at all. That is actually an example of how I try to see the facts of the case in the ... hmmm... light of its time (as you say we must, which I agree upon).
Then you have a good point. There actually is a possibility that the murderer was seen, but then the witnesses didn't want to get involved. But since we have no material showing or proving this (if one doesen't count those individuals seen earlier, one of them the Schwartz man), that insight is unfortunately not of any use to us. I think the man's elusiveness is strange too and I would be a liar if I said I could explain the loss of sightings of such a man. But still, there are a lot of details and circumstances we fail to explain in connection with the Ripper murders.
My belief is that the murder occurred just seconds before Diemschutz arrival, maybe even at that exact moment, so if the debat stopped at 23:30 (as we say here in Sweden, we don't use the annoying a.m. and f.m.), there would be quite enough time for the leaving club members to disappear from the scene. But that doesen't explain why these "groups" of people aren't mentioned by witnesses like Schwartz or others! Once again, Shannon -- where are they? And the fact that no man is mentioned leaving the yard (in connection with the murder) also indicates that there wasn't that many people walking about. That is logical to me, Shannon.
P.S. I do believe you just as well could be wrong about Kate Eddowes. If she walked the streets in "your" interpretation to get money for the bed, how would she get any money if she didn't prostitute herself, especially as she wasted the money she got on drink? Yes, she could occasionally have taken refuge in the casula ward, but we have no evidence saying that really is what she did. You can't just assume that, just because you don't want to see her as a prostitute. Looking at the social conditions and the fact that the phenomenon of prostitution amongst low-class women in the East End was widely spread, although it for the most part was called something else (seamstress etc.), it is just as fair to assume that she did prostitute herself when they were in desperate need for money (regardless if John Kelly knew about it or not). And what was she otherwise doing on Mitre Square, away from her usual route the night of the murder? I see your point, but it is speculations nevertheless, where you make your "corrections" sound as facts.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:37 pm: | |
Glenn, there is a way to see into Dutfields yard today. The picture taken from the corner of Faircloth and Berner gives much more detail than most would give it credit for. First I have triangulated the coordinates onto a present day map of the area. Next created a grid of the buildings using reference points on the corners and in effect made a 3d model of it which can be rotated or viewed from above with the aid of a 3d architecture program. Taking the witness statements from Wess and Eagle as to the approximate dimensions and placement of the structures, I have what I believe to be an accurate picture of the yard.
As far as trying to teach you anything, nothing could be further from the truth. I merely stated how I see things and not how I expect you to...
Glenn, "Lights from the windows of the upper storey can't possibly fall into such a narrow court but on the buildings on the opposite side."
Remember from the statement that the lights were on the first floor of the dwellings and those I believe would have shed at least partial light on things. Louis could see something("I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what"), just wasnt sure until he hit the match. If it were as dark as you have indicated, he would not have been able to see anything at all.
If the murder occured as you stated,"My belief is that the murder occurred just seconds before Diemschutz arrival, maybe even at that exact moment..."
Louis, "I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning..."
According to Dr Blackwell, "She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed."
Again, erroring on the side of caution as we do not know what the doctor considered "slowly" in reference to how long it took for her to die, only that she was already dead when Louis tried to move her with the whip handle and lit the match to see that it was a woman. Again, forensics indicates the killer had already completed the act before the cart came into the yard.
Kate did not walk the steets to get money for her bed, she walked the streets instead of taking the lodging and found refuge on the street.
Shannon
|
harry mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:32 am: | |
Saddam,
To understand my reasoning,it is neccessary to read and digest all my posts,not just a couple of lines of a particular one.
While the killer contained his activities to the streets,unless seen and identified in the act of killing,or was seen in suspicious circumstances afterwards,he was just one of the thousands of inhabitants of Whitechapel and districts who had free access to the killing sites,and as such was only of equal value to the rest.
By killing Kelly in her self occupied room,the position changed.For if the police should assume that she never left the room after the arrival with the midnight visitor,suspicion would tend to focus on that person,or a later person who entered uninvited,such as the person observed by Sarah Lewis at Crossinghams's.Certainly aquantancies would be considered first and how long could Hutchinson expect to avoid being interviewed since his association with Kelly dated back before that of Barnett.What price his story being believed if the police had to go to him.He would certainly have had more attention focussed on him for not coming forward.
One other problem he faced.Although not seemingly identified by Lewis as the man outside Crossingham's,should the police find and identify the twelve oclock companion,and should that person be able to satisfy the police that he was not the killer,then the man outside Crossingham's again became a person of interest.So Hutchinson,if keeping silent,was in a precarious position.He had to come forward and explain his presence.Only his introduction of a stranger took the heat off Kelly's aquaintancies,of which he was one.Forget the sexual angle in the Whitechapel killings.The obsession with prostitutes and their clients is a smokescreen that is obscuring the truth.Whitechapel never was different to a score of English cities,and it's women no more inclined to prostitution than others.There were unfortunates everywhere.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
"...fall into the same trap the PC's did in 1888 and the mystery goes unsolved."
>>Shannon,
I'm not so confident that from our position over a century later we can assay exactly what traps the police at the time did or did not fall into. It seems to me we need to speak both generally and rather approvingly of the police investigation. They were there on the spot while we're not, and had thousands of data points available to them that history never recorded. If I could go back in time and stand for one minute in the alley watching procedings as the body were discovered, I'd easily be able to pick up factors of power more data about that murder than we have available today. But absent this ability, we're stuck with what we have, which is less than what they had.
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
