Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through July 10, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Catherine Eddowes » Movements after Eddowes murder » Archive through July 10, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 157
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert,

I shall tell you a story that most Casebook vets know already..sorry to bore folks.

I took a trip to Goulston st a last summer with a mate of mine. We went with an intention of doing a little experiment with a piece of chalk. We found the dwellings enterance but we also found it covered in whitewash. The next entry (which we assumed was also part of the dwellings) had chips off the whitewash and exposed a royal blue paint. This we thought could not have been its original brick work because in books it is described as black.

Becky (my mate) had wandered across to the opposite side of Goulston st whilst I was contemplating some wanton vandalism. She called me over. She had noticed a large chip on the buildings opposite the Wenworth dwellings. This chip ran through a few layers of paint including the exact same shade of blue we had noted previously. The difference being that this chip ran straight through to brick.

The layer above brick was a sepia glaze (which could have seemed black at night), there was NO black. Now we reckoned that this must have been its original brickwork and was roughly 4 - 5 ft off the ground. The chip was around 1 - 2 inches in diameter and just big enough for me to write in different letters with my chalk. I chose letters from the graffito (J's, W's etc) and it came out very bitty and blurred. It seem as if the writing was old when infact I'd only just put it there.

The only problem was that this experiment was NOT conducted on the Wentworth dwellings. I put out a request on the boards asking if the surrounding buildings were a) built at the same time and b) had the same decorations as the Wentworth Dwellings. Mr Fido kindly replied (do you remember this Martin ?) that the opposite buildings had been built at the same time and had been decorated in the same manner.

I used modern chalk for this experiment and it has been pointed out to me that different chalks may produce different results.

But in answer to your question about the removal, I found that all I had to do was wipe my thumb over and it was gone. This was so easy because it was a glazed brick. It was something I didnt expect.

Make of that what you want...or even better, if you happen to be down old Goulston st way with a piece of chalk......

Sorry I went on a bit,

Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 158
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All,

Wasnt the apron soaked in one corner ??

Would it have been soaked pretty much all over if it was wrapped around a kidney ?

Monty
:-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 38
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If so, it sounds like a corner may have been folded over to wipe off a knife blade. This is exactly what I do when drying a kitchen knife, for example.

Andy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Caz

Sure it's possible, and improvisation isn't out of the question--he certainly improvised the crime scenes. But could all the excess liquid have been absorbed by the time Goulston Street came around? Maybe he used his pocket with Chapman, but what did he use for Kelly's heart (assuming she's a Ripper victim), which I guess would have been heavy with blood, and dripping all over the place? Unaccounted-for material was found in the fireplace, right? No sheets ripped in half (just slashed).

It just seems simpler that he used the apron piece as a towel.

Simplest is best(for me). I reserve the right to change my mind at any time :-)

Cheers,
Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 378
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 5:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all

Well, I'm puzzled by the whole thing!

Dr Brown said that there was a little mud on Eddowes's left cheek. If we can feel confident that Dr Brown would have noticed faecal matter on Eddowes's face had there been any, and if we can feel confident that at some point during the facial mutilations Jack would have held the face or chin, then it looks as if Jack extracted the organs, cut the apron and wiped his hands, then did the facial mutilations as an afterthought.

But I'm puzzled by Brown's remark that "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it." Why only one side? How can you wipe both hands on one side of an apron?

Monty, very interesting story! Whoever wrote the message, if the writing surface was difficult maybe that alone explains the "Juwes" word - a bit like the spelling mistakes people make when their brain's thinking faster than their fingers can type.

If you will fill me in on the times of the police beats, I'll nip down to Goulston St with a chisel and a blow-lamp.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 6:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Robert

Why couldn't the facial mutilations have been done before the abdominal wounds? I might be missing something--is it because the wounds on the face are considered a luxurious act and so would have been done last? Since the throat wound is the first, and there's neither blood or fecal matter on the face, it seems reasonable they were made after the throat and before the abdomen.

The Apron: Maybe Brown is referring to one particular marking or smearing here where there seems to be others, because he talks about spots of blood and the prescence of fecal matter earlier.

Let me expose my throat by giving you my scenario, parts of which have been offered by others and make sense to me: Jack strangles Kate into unconsciousness, lays her down and cuts her throat. Mutilates the face, then the abdomen, during which he gathers the kidney/womb (placing them into some type of container he has brought--a sack perhaps). He detaches parts of the intestines/colon, and exposes himself to fecal matter. Around this point, he hears Watkins approaching and knows he has to get out of there. He tears a section of material from the apron, wipes his knife clean, which he drops into his bag (not his person, because his hands are still filthy at this point). Then he leaves the Square, wiping his hands as he calmly walks in the direction of Goulston Street, not too fast, not too slow. I feel he takes Aldgate (he meets the prostitutes in the large arteries--the murders all happen near major streets) to Goulston Street. It's dark and overcast. Goulston is not a narrow space, it's a wide area. He's probably seen, but not up close, and no one thinks much of him because of his seemingly casual actions. Word of the Eddowes murder is still behind him, and those who have heard about Stride are thinking about the Berner Street area. By the time he reaches the model dwelling house, his hands are reasonably clean and he tosses the portion of apron away. Long either misses it on his first pass, or he never makes that first pass at all. Seventy-eight years later I am born (laugh).

Okay, total speculation--but it's fun and I hope not unreasonable. No one will ever know how it really happened, but if JtR has enough foresight to bring a knife, then why not a sack for the kidney/womb?

I await the corrections to my errors :-)

Cheers,
Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 40
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 7:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Problem is, if she is alive and only unconcious, there would be a lot of blood spurting everywhere when he cuts her throat. I don't recall such a description of the crime scene. On the other hand, if he take several minutes to strangle her to death first, does he have time for all the mutilations?

Unless perhaps her blood pressure was reduced due to unconsciousness to the poit where there was not much arterial spurting.

Andy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 7:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Andy

The reason I say she was unconscious is because Brown testified the throat wound was the cause of death.

Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek

Post Number: 41
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 7:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi David,

I'm not trying to nitpick, just trying to understand how it happened.

I think I may have stumbled onto it by suggesting that her blood pressure was reuced by unconsciousness. I can't imagine him having enought time to strangle her to death (several minutes) and still do all the multilations and get clean away.

Andy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Andy

Me, too :-) And I think you might be right that she was beyond unconsciousness and near death when he cut her throat. I don't know if that would reduce the blood spurt. Now that you bring it up, I don't remember reading about any blood splatters on the rear of the building near her head. It all seems to have collected in puddles about and underneath her.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 381
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 7:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Dave, everyone

Dave I go along with most of what you say.

I'm not a doctor (we don't seem to have one on the Boards unfortunately) but I reckon you're right, she was strangled or partially strangled while standing up. There don't seem to have been any bruises on the back, elbows etc so I doubt if she was strangled on the ground, or even up against a wall. Then he lay her down and cut her throat.

I don't follow you about the facial mutilations. In the cases of Nichols and Chapman, he went from throat cutting to abdominal mutilation, and never got as far as mutilating their faces. Doesn't this mean that the abdomen was the prime target?
So I imagine he'd have gone for Catherine's abdomen first.

My point about the apparent absence of faecal matter on the face was to try and rule out his mutilating the abdomen, then doing the face, and then returning to the abdomen for another hack at it. If he cut off the apron and wiped his hands before doing the face, that would seem to suggest that he thought he'd finished, but then couldn't resist a quick attack on the face. Of course, we can't be certain that there was no faecal matter on Eddowes's face.

I think it's more likely he was scared off by Morris's door opening than by Watkins's approaching boots, though there's not much in it time-wise.

Dave, do you know if it was common for people to carry knives in that area? I seem to have got it into my head that it was, and that carrying a knife was not in itself suspicious, but I can't remember where I got this from.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 9:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Robert

The facial mutilations--I don't think because they might have been done first that they were his prime objective.

It doesn't seem reasonable he could have wiped his hands so clean in Mitre Square that no blood or fecal matter was transferred to Kate's face. Remember, he's reaching way deep inside her to reach that kidney. Brown noticed the mud, so it seems reasonable he would have spotted anything else (by the way, where does mud come from in Mitre Square?). And this is before baby wipes, the apron's dry. But nothing's transferred to the face. So that's why I say the facial mutilations came first. I could be wrong, but why not do them before the abdomen since he's up by the throat anyway, and working fast? It's just more convenient to do the face first, not necessarily the most important.

Why mutilate Kate's face and not Nichols's or Chapman's? I can't say. I feel he was interrupted with Nichols (no organs taken, and there's a question that she might have been barely alive when found), and I think dawn was about to break while he worked on Chapman, so maybe he thought it was just too risky. Or maybe Eddowes was different, said something that pissed him off--maybe she made a remark about his looks, or that he smelled bad. So he mutilates her nose and eyes. I've no idea why the cheeks. But you know, I'm hopelessly speculating. I recognize it could be something else entirely.

Robert, I don't know about the frequency of knife-wielders in Whitechapel. I wouldn't be surprised with all the thugs and the proximity of slaughterhouses and there was lots of violence going on; somebody more knowledgable is sure to know. But I feel he would have certainly concealed the knife. I can buy people not thinking much of a guy walking down the street and wiping his hands, I can buy their missing what little blood might have been on his clothes in the dark. But I can't buy their not thinking anything about an openly displayed knife, not late at night, not during that autumn. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by your question.

It's certainly possible he could have been disturbed by Morris rather than Watkins. Maybe it was just luck he didn't run straight into Watkins entering the Square, there's more than one way out. I think this guy, whoever he was, had all sorts of luck.

But we both seem to think that something happened that made him know to move on. That's one of the reasons I think the clean-up happened as he moved.

About fifteen minutes between Watkins's rounds--Brown says five minutes to do the murder, and he's the doctor. But I don't know. Five? To strangle, cut the throat, the eyes, cheeks, and nose--that's cartilage he has to cut through. Then rip into the belly, find the kidney near her back, remove the womb. Then clean up. It seems like he would have needed just about the full fifteen minutes just to do what he wanted without the wipe up.

So that's what I think and why. I could be all wrong--I usually am :-) But it's fun to discuss and I've enjoyed reading this thread over the past week.

Cheers,
Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 4:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Dave,

You wrote:

'Remember, he's reaching way deep inside her to reach that kidney.'

'...maybe Eddowes was different, said something that pissed him off--maybe she made a remark about his looks, or that he smelled bad. So he mutilates her nose and eyes. I've no idea why the cheeks.'

'To strangle, cut the throat, the eyes, cheeks, and nose--that's cartilage he has to cut through. Then rip into the belly, find the kidney near her back, remove the womb.'

Someone else wrote:

'Within the quarter of the hour I found another dirty bitch willing to sell her wares. The whore like all the rest was only too willing. The thrill she gave me was unlike the others, I cut deep deep deep. Her nose annoyed me so I cut it off, had a go at her eyes, left my mark, could not get the bitches head off. I believe now it is impossible to do so. The whore never screamed. I took all I could away with me.'

Your speculation, together with that of Mr. Nobody, who wrote a certain diary, sounds far from 'hopeless' - in fact, between you both, it hits the spot for me. You didn't write it, did you Dave?

If you did, I congratulate you on the words I made bold. A powerful hint at the kind of simple and completely mad reasoning that could well have governed the impulses of the person who mutilated Kate's face.

'Her nose annoyed me so I cut it off...'

What more reason would the ripper need than that?

Love,

Caz

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 382
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 5:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Dave

Yes, it's tremendous fun, thinking up these scenarios, and probably necessary as well.

That's a good point about his hands - how could he have cleaned them so thoroughly if he did the abdomen before the face? I don't know the answer to that!

I just feel it would be very strange if he did do the face first. He'd have seen Lawende and Co, and may have been wondering if they'd come back. He may or may not have been frustratingly baulked of his prey earlier, depending on whether or not you believe Stride was a victim. He didn't know just how much time he had to work with, though he may have known the police beats. I can't help feeling he'd have gone to his favourite place (the abdomen) first.

Take Kelly. She seems to have been killed with her head in the top corner of the bed, under which a pool of blood formed on the floor. I don't know how long it would have taken blood to penetrate that cheap old mattress and come out the other side. But if we allow at least some time for it to do this, then, if he attacked Kelly's face first, that would have meant that he was reaching over to the far corner to do it. That seems an odd way to mutilate the face. A better position seems to be to do it with the face turned towards him and the body pulled nearer to him - more like the position she was found in.

I asked about the knife because in your last paragraph you said that he had enough foresight to bring a knife. I was wondering whether Jack always planned to kill, hence his bringing the knife. Maybe this boils down to what line of trade he was in.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 7:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Caz

Nope, it wasn't me, I swear! Whoever Mr. Nobody is, it sounds like he had a couple of stiff drinks first and when I speculate, I speculate sober. (laugh)

Hi, Robert

Thanks, I see what you mean about carrying the knife now. I hadn't thought of it that way. Still, premeditation fits better for me. I think he knew when, but not who or where.

Robert, Caz, and anyone, do you have any ideas about the specific route taken from Mitre Square? I'm very hazy on it. I'd love to hear from Monty about this, since I know he's spent a lot of time in that area.

Cheers,
Dave

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido

Post Number: 59
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 7:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What a lot of posts in one day!
Harking back to an archived-already yesterday posting from Monty, re Long and his failure to be aware of the hullabaloo a few streets away from his beat: Don Rumbelow, speaking from experience of his brother officers, used to speculate that Watkins was not necessarily following his round reliably, but could have stopped for a smoke and a chinwag with the old City man Morris, and so have been inside the warehouse failing to observe Jack in action. I don't think that scenario works, but I wonder whether Long could have found an amiable conversationalist offering a pipeful of baccy and a cup of tea.
Allthe best,
Martin F
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 4:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All,
I've gutted, skinned, and boned several white tail deer in my life, so I think I can add a bit of expertise to the mutilation question.
First, gutting a deer (or person) is a quick operation. If you don't care about what damage you inflict it only takes seconds. If you know what body part you want and it's location, you can find it and get it out in seconds, even in the dark. I think the facial mutilations were random, not planned out or designed. Again, that doesn't take long at all. The only time consuming part of the whole operation is whatever mode JTR used to knockout out Catherine, be it strangulation, throat cutting, etc. I'm no doctor, but I think I could pull off the mutilations JTR did pretty quickly.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Saddam
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 11:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"...soggy pocket." Quintessentially British.

Saddam
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 160
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Martin, Dave,

Martin,

A reason for Morris to open his door ? A quick fly cuppa with PC Watkins.

Dave,

Its a toss up between Surveyor Forsters quick route (St James Passage/Creechurch lane) or the longer one (Aldgate/Whitechapel High St).

Me ? I'd have taken the quicker route via St James passage, across Houndsditch & Middlesex st into New Goulston st (I know Ive missed a few streets & lanes out) and on to the Dwellings that way.

My reason for doing so, and Ive stated this before on the boards is St James Passage is the only exit out of the square not covered by a PC's beat. By that I mean no PC actually enters the passage (though the debate on Harvey entering Church passage still rages), nor are they required to during their beats. I think Jack knew this, he studied what was going on around him.

Another reason is this route takes in many crossroads, so therefore the options for evasive action are many and could have been taken if a PC or anyone suddenly appears. Its a getout route without having to stray far from your intended course. You appear in front of me, ok, I'll turn right here. Which is a possible reason why he turned south into Middlesex st then east along New Goulston and back North again at Goulston street towards Wentworth st. Was he avoiding someone ?

I have many other reasons/scenarios banging in my head like did he not go towards Aldgate because it was fairly busy or because Harvery was doubling back ? or Mitre st cos Watkins has entered just it ?

See, this is what I do at night....all alone...cos I have no friends

Monty
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 5:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Monty

Thanks, that's food for thought. So Aldgate's the longer route? I'd agree that he'd take the most direct route known to him. The question is, how familiar was he with the backstreets?

On the other hand, Aldgate could be a plus because you can lose yourself in a crowd. I guess what I wonder about is how crowded was it that late? I know there were plenty of people around, but were they enough to be packed-in like the daytime photos I've seen? If so, then Aldgate would be out--you don't want anyone walking right next to you for long.

I'm going to dig up your previous posts on this subject, Monty

Cheers,
Dave

PS No friends? Get yourself outdoors this weekend :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 163
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dave,

Aldgates the most straightforward and longer, but not by much.

Id say he knew the area. Might not live there. I know that on a map the streets and alleys seem complex but they are not really. Not if you keep main thoroughfares as markers ie Commercial St, Houndsditch, Whitechapel Rd, Middlesex st. As long as you know which direction you want to go in then its quite simple. So on the other hand I may be wrong.....I cant keep up with myself !!

When I say he knew the area Im also refering to the people, police and the general everyday routine stuff people do.

I imagine Aldgate in 1888 is just as busy as Aldgate today. Quite a few people out and about. Mixing in a crowd only means more people to check you out. As we have read in contemperary news reports, all it takes is one person yelling "Theres Jack...'ees got blood all over 'is 'ands" and the next thing he knows is that he is being chased down Whitechapel High st with a gang of 30 on his tail !....that with his pocket full of a kidney and a inch of renal !

Would you risk it ??

Halse, Marriott and Outram where working in Aldgate, along with Harvey and Watkin on their beats make a lot of police activity. Of course he may have used this route, along with many others, and the only definite we have is that at some stage, between 1:45am and 2:55am, he was in Goulston st.

Regards,
Monty
:-)

PS Did you get my mail Re Millie ?? If not, thanks for your wishes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Monty, As we are discussing animals, keep them cat's claw's to yourself.
The point i was trying to make is, if the kidney was actually eaten by a dog, if we take this as fact, if this is what really happened, then the person who sent Mister Lusk the kidney and letter must have gotten his kidney from somewhere else, it couldn't have been Eddowes kidney. It had been eaten by a dog. Thus rendering the letter a hoax
Of course the killer could have took out Eddowes kidney dropped it ,then a dog came along and eat it. Next day finds the killer with an overwhelming desire to send Edowwes kidney to the press together with a letter. of course he hasn't got Eddowes kidney it's been eaten by a sodding dog, so he aquires one that has been presarved in alcholol and sends this instead, thus satisfying his morbid decision to taunt the press.
I don't believe i just wrote that, and neither can you monty, or Alan for that matter.
Your Dog eared friend Tommy the Terrier.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And another thing Monty, do you realise that all this picking on Tommy could undermine his self esteem and turn him into a serial killer, lesser deeds have turned men thus.
Would you have the innocent blood of a dozen Afghan hound's on your concience, not to mention the Cairn Terriers.
Tommy the Terror.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Alan, when i wrote, anyone who doesnt discount the Lusk letter cannot be considered a seriously thinking individual, i meant to add to the end of the message, "can they?", but at that moment the computer crashed, and the message was sent without the, can they?.
What i was saying about seriously thinking people discounting the Lusk letter was tongue in cheek, no offence was intended. But if your good self, and Monty, think that the Lusk letter might be genuine, then you are entitled to your opinion, but i still think your mad to do so.
Tommy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 1:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Monty

Whether or not I'd take Aldgate really depends on what kind of crowd is there. If we're talking about clumps of people going about their business, kind of scattered, then yes, I'd consider it. Yup, it's more eyes to see you, but there's more to be seen, so I'd have a chance of blending in, especially if there's some action diverting attention (I'm not saying there was, but I'm talking like a loud drunk or a fight, stuff common to the area). Again, I'd keep a steady pace, no big movements, not meet anyone's eye, yet I wouldn't avoid anybody's gaze. I would behave as if I were only going to the building on the next corner, and so on until I was home. I'd wear dark clothing so that no blood shows, particularly in the dark. I'd stick to the streetsides and avoid direct exposure under gaslight. The oddities would be that perhaps I'd be holding a sack or a bag, or possibly wiping my hands. How much would I stand out, if you were observing me from a nearby distance? Remember that I'm talking about the span of time immediately after the Eddowes murder. And while I might still be walking when the news hits, attention flies to Mitre Square. There's already a great deal of attention focused in Berner Street already, so I have that going for me, too (if I'm responsible for Stride, and know a murder has been committed).

But you're right, it only takes one person to start screaming, and you're done for. If there's more of a packed, denser crowd present, there's no way I'd ever attempt a street like Aldgate. But also consider that the murders all seem to occur on nights when it had been raining. Does this cut down on the number of people around?

But your many great points about the back streets has a lot to say for it, especially if it's easier to get around than it looks. I don't know about his knowing the police beats, though. Consider that he doesn't know who the victim will be, where he's going to meet her, or when. He doesn't know where she's going to take him. So he has to know the beats of all the police in the area, because he doesn't know where he's going. That's a lot of movement to keep in your head.

I've read that a few people were stopped that night. I wonder if any were stopped on Aldgate. No real point to asking the question, except for a thought that maybe the police concentrated their search in the back streets, that they concentrated less on the main streets like Aldgate for the very reasons you mention.

But you're right, all we can know for sure is that he was in Goulston Street, and anything else is speculation.

Sorry for the long posts!

Cheers,
Dave

PS I sure did get your email and I'm glad Millie's doing better :-)

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.