|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 11:09 am: |       |
Hi John
Point B, on the plan was only the position the sketch of the body and the corner Catharine Eddowes was drawn from. The sketch is also reproduced in Farson's book and the top right of Begg's book.
Police Constable Watkins found the body when he turned the corner in which Carharine Eddowes was found in.
I believe all the police records from Catharine Eddowes were destroyed during the second world war, but who knows if any of it was pilfered before that by souvenir hunters.
Rob |
John Ruffels
Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 7:09 am: | |
Thanks Rob,
Curious the Coroner's sketch plan laid out like that: A & B.
Nonetheless, and I accept your information this does not mark the spot the PC was standing when he first discerned the body.So why was that spot chosen?
Elsewhere on the Casebook site, someone has used Census data to suggest serving or ex-policemen's residences might have been used for surveillance purposes,(where their location was useful.)Perhaps this applied here.
And why the extraordinary Scotland Yard clamp-down on information to the press directly after the Eddowes murder? The suggestion put about was it was to protect the witness's description of the Ripper due to be given at the Eddowes Inquest. Yet the Coroner curtailed discussion there too.
Commissioner Munro suggested the JTR case was "a hot potato".Maybe the potato was that several police SHOULD have been staking out Mitre Square and NONE actually were.
There was a demarkation boundary: Church Passage: (PC Harvey)patrolled to the Mitre Square end of it.And PC Watkins actually in the Square.
If prostitutes took their clients to safe spots where "a window of opportunity" was possible, due to the timings of police beats, might they not know the policemen who were the slackest; who might turn a blind eye; who might slacken off on a cold night and stop for a warm cup of tea or coffee with some rum in it at the house of a trusted colleague or an ex-policeman caretaker
pal?
Surely, the existence of a P.C.- in- residence at the site of a JTR murder,and an expoliceman caretaker with his door ajar( on a bitterly cold night), provides some verisimilitude for part of Steve White's story? |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 9:17 am: | |
Hi John,
I wasn't trying to be cheeky with the bioluminescence/ Jawas remark. Well, maybe just a teeny bit  ...it's just one of the many statements in this article that bother me.
I really don't know too much about MJ Druitt, because I've personally never favoured him as a suspect.
I'm not sure if you're hinting at a conspiracy of some sort to conceal Druitt's identity as Jack? I would ask why, because it doesn't seem to me that he was a very important person.
Be gentle with me, I really don't know too much of Druitt's story!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
Hallo everyone
I can't help feeling that White's story, despite all its problems, does perhaps contain something important. But I can't put my finger on what it is.
I also can't help but have reservations about PC Harvey's claim that he went to the end of Church Passage. He estimated that he was at the end of the passage at 18 or 19 minutes to two. If we assume the passage was paved, his boots would have been audible approaching and receding for a little while either side of his estimated time.
I find it difficult to believe that the Ripper would have commenced, or continued, his work while Harvey was still audible in Church Passage.
So the Ripper had either mutilated Eddowes before Harvey came on the scene, and Harvey simply failed to notice her body, or he waited for Harvey to clear off before starting work. Either way, it's difficult to believe he would have had the time to do what he did to Eddowes, cut off the piece of apron and quit the Square.
I can't help suspecting that Harvey merely cast a quick glance down Church Passage, and continued his beat.
Paul Begg says that Harvey was dismissed from the police in July 1889, so he may have been unreliable.
PC Long, who may have failed to spot the piece of apron as he walked down Goulston Street at 2.20 was also, according to Begg, dismissed same month same year. That could of course just be coincidence.
PS Marie, having never watched "Star Wars" (!) I don't know who the Jawas are. Maybe they're the men that will not be blamed for nothing!
Robert |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi John, Richard, Marie, everyone
John I don't think we should read anything sinister into point B on the coroner's sketch, I think it was just to show the position the sketch was made from. I do agree with you that something strange was going on after the double murder to cause a clampdown in the press.
Looking at the coroners map, I can't think of any reason why Mitre Square should be staked out. Of course (this is pure speculation, and mostly guesswork) Catharine Eddowes claimed to know the identity of Jack the Ripper, perhaps she was released early to lure Jack the Ripper into a trap, but something went wrong and he realised he was being set up and killed her before she lured him to a prearranged spot.
Richard you may be right about P.C Harvey, even if he got as far as Mitre Square he may not have taken a good look into the square and Catharine Eddowes was found in the darkest corner, so he may not have even noticed her unless he shone his bulls eye on to the spot. Catharine Eddowes I believe, was already dead at the time he was supposed to be there.
I remember hearing Donald Rumbelow saying the square had an echo on it, so Jack had to work very quietly.
Rob |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 78
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
Robert, you posted: "Catharine Eddowes claimed to know the identity of Jack the Ripper, perhaps she was released early to lure Jack the Ripper into a trap".
I'd never thought of this possibility, it's certainly interesting.
But when she was arressted at 8.00pm, she was falling-down drunk. She didn't come to until about 12.15am, so I'm not sure if she would have been in any state to tell the police that she knew who the Ripper was.
Also, isn't there some special procedure you have to go through, in order to give this kind of information, and recieve a reward? Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't think you can just blurt it out whilst in your cell, and either be *taken seriously*, or recieve any reward.
Also, isn't four hours precious little time to set-up a trap for a killer, using a drunken prostitute?
[PS> Robert Linford: Your comment made me laugh! I can't believe you haven't seen Star Wars. The Jawas are the little guys in hoods, you can't see their faces, only their incredibly glowing eyes...] |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 5:50 pm: | |
Hi all
If Eddowes was trying to snare the Ripper, wouldn't she have wanted to make pretty sure that her name was on the reward? Yet she twice declined to give her true name - once in the street, when she answered "Nothing", and a second time at the station, when she gave a false name.
Robert |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 7:22 pm: | |
Hi Marie, Robert
I did say it was guesswork, and it fell to pieces after two posts.
What I should have tried to say is, there is something odd about Catharine Eddowes murder. While most people think the murder of Mary Kelly holds the key, perhaps we should be looking more closely at Catharine Eddowes, for example on the 28 September she told the superintendent of Shoe Lane casual ward that she thinks she knows the identity of the Whitechapel murderer. And two days later she is murdered. Coincidence? maybe.
All the best
Rob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
I have mentioned this on the boards before , that it is my opinion, that Eddowes was followed on leaving the station, she may or not have been aware of the situation.
I have always held the opinion that the person who approached Blenkensop, was a plain clothes police officer, who had overdone his job and lost Eddowes and her accoster, also I believe that the killer met Eddowes just after her being released,
Robert makes a good point in that she may have given the police the idea by swanking that she knew the identity of the killer, and it may be the case that she came to an arrangement , to walk the streets that night closely attended by a police officer, on the off chance that she could point out the person that may be responsible.
I remember Hutchinson claimed that he was paid the sum of five pounds, for walking whitechapel on several occasions with police officers, trying to spot Kellys astracan man.
So it figures that even the prospect of earning a few shillings Eddowes would have been more then willing to take the risk which she would have considered minimal , with a police officer close at hand.
To put it in a nutshell, I believe the police officer made a tragic mistake, lost Eddowes whilst she and her killer were standing in church passage, this would explain his question to Blenkensop; Have you seen a man and a woman pass this way?.;
Also the police put up a wall of silience, after this murder .Why?
Richard. |
John Ruffels
Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 6:56 am: | |
Hello Everyone,
Marie I enjoyed your Jawas allusion and Robert's equally witty rejoinder.
I am finding this strand of discussion of the Eddowes murder very interesting.
Again, two points:
Robert:If the Coroner asked a City of London Licensed Surveyor named Foster, (was he a relative of Inspector Foster who attended the Eddowes Inquest?),to draw a sketch of the murder site, surely, the best place to sketch the body from would be the spot where P.C.Watkins first shone his BullsEye Lamp upon her.
My untried & half-baked theory is that yes,Marie, there was a conspiracy of silence ,but it was not
about the use of Druitt as an innocent fall-guy.
It was about the contraversial activities of Munro's Special Branch.Munro had more than once clashed with a Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the independence and secrecy of Munro's men's activities.
Now, if Munro deemed JTR's murders a political campaign.(And lots of high-ups feared East end revolution),and if it is true Macnaghten - early on- believed JTR to be an Anarchist;then Munro's men could well have been staking out likely spots, especially those near Anarchist clubs.
If the stakeout went wrong, and, against all odds, the Ripper escaped the cordon,then, I believe, the very high-up police (or rather, Munro and Matthews and perhaps, later, Macnaghten) all desperately wanted to conceal this "hot potato" from the anxious public-and the Metropolitan AND NOW also, the City Police Commissioner!
Point Two:It is also my belief, the Surveyor sited his sketch (accidentally, unaware of the cover-up), "B',on the Special Branch policeman who was reporting to Steve White and who came out of a house nearby and spotted the corpse.If White's story is true, then his absent policeman could have come out of the house of P.C.Pearse, in the Square,at point "B'.
True, no Special Branch policeman gave testimony at the Eddowes Inquest.It has always been the
modus of Special Branch to use other ordinary police to present evidence to conceal their own methods. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 80
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 3:33 pm: | |
Hi everyone.
I simply can't agree that Eddowes was part of any set-up to catch Jack. She had only just come round, after being fall-down drunk. I think she wanted to make a little money, perhaps to convince her lover that she really had been to see her daughter. She did say that she expected a beating, when she got home. Perhaps she thought that if she had a bit of money (supposedly from her daughter), he might go easier on her.
Maybe she did know who Jack was, and she did indeed meet him, but assumed that he didn't know that she was going to turn him in. So she wasn't afraid of him.
Or more likely, she took an opportunity with a man, and it proved to be deadly. This tells me that perhaps she didn't really know who Jack was. She could have been wrong, or simply bragging when she said she knew his identity.
George Hutchinson gave information to the police, through the regular procedure, and most likely he was sober when he did it. They would have paid him to do it, because he seemed believeable. But Eddowes had just been hauled off the pavement for screaming like a fire engine, just four hours earlier. It's unlikely that the police hastily set up a trap for Jack, using her.
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 81
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 3:35 pm: | |
John Ruffels: your post was most interesting. I'll have to think on that a little while, |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 4:05 pm: | |
Hi Marie, John, Richard, Robert
We don't really know what Catharine Eddowes, said whilst in the police cell. If she was totally rat-faced, she could have blurted out anything, not necessarily face to face to a police man but in ear shot. In which case do they ignore it? I doubt it. This would go along with what Richard was saying above, in that Catharine Eddowes was followed when she left the police station. Just to protect themselves in case she was telling the truth.
Whether or not she actually knew who Jack the Ripper was, she went around telling people she knew who he was. And if he was a local man he could have got to hear about it, and wanted to silence her.
John, there are two other sketches with the coroners report, One shows the full body mutilations and the other shows the mutilations to the face, the sketch from point B was just to show where the body was located in the square to give the coroner and jury an idea of the location. I think one was also done for the backyard of Hanbury Street and Millers court. Although they may have just been plans.
All the best
Rob |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
Well yes, what you are saying is certainly possible, in theory. But unlikely, to my mind.
We really have no evidence that the man who asked Blenkinsop if he had seen a couple pass, was refering to Eddowes and her killer. Or that he was a Police Officer.
You guys could easily be right- but to my mind, it seems like we're trying a little too hard to connect the dots, here. I can't find any evidence to really support this theory.
I usually try to apply Occam's Razor to all my own theories about Jack. Hence my feeling about Eddowes' murder, is that she met her killer on her way home. She was hoping to make some money, but instead she met a very horrible end.
|
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 6:34 pm: | |
Hi Marie
I don't believe Catharine Eddowes was going home after she left the police station.
When she left Bishopsgate police station, she went in the opposite direction to where she was staying which was giving at the police station as 6 Fashion Street. I am presuming she gave the right address which I think is "Cooneys Lodging house", since she was booted out of "Shoe Lane",(sorry I couldn't resist)the day before.
Of course she may have been trying to earn some money, but I would have thought she would have tried somewhere nearer home.
I think she was going to meet someone.
As much as I admire you for trying to apply Occam's Razor theory (I had to look it up), I don't think we can use it for most scenarios, as there is very little factual evidence to go on. All we have got to go on is conflicting newspaper reports, missing police reports, the ones we do have aren't exactly brimming with information. And that just leaves us with a lot of guesswork which I am not to fond off, but I am guilty off.
This mystery is like stringing beads, plenty of beads but no thread.
All the best Marie
Rob |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 7:12 pm: | |
Yes Rob, it's possible she was going to meet someone but, when you consider all of the random events which occurred, what's the likelyhood of that happening?
How did she know she was going to be arrested for impersonating a fire engine (a sight worth seeing I wager) when totally rat-arsed. How did she know the time she was going to be released?
If she was off to meet someone it would be a remarkable coincidence she was released at the right time. After all, who would hang about the dark streets of London and a rainy night for hours on end? Yes, alright, George Hutchinson! But I think he enjoyed looking into windows to see what he could see.
However, she was walking in the wrong direction so what was she up to? Therefore, Rob, you might be right!
Cheers, Mark |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 4:02 am: | |
Hi everyone,
The trouble with our subject, their is never any evidence, all we can do is try and untangle a huge knot.
We can never know if the man who approached Blenkensop, was a police officer , or indeed he was refering to Eddowes and her companion, i just thought as it was the exact time that Eddowes was standing in church passage, it has to be a possible senerio.
The fact that Eddowes was reported to have said she knew the murderers identity is a pointer that she may have well said whilst in police custody, that she could point him out if she saw him, and she may have been offered some financial gain or even an early release from custody if she spent a couple of hours as a decoy, under police supervision.
There is no evidence , but it would explain a lot of unexplained points if this was true.
I am not a great believer in hear say, however in the case of Jack some of the points made may hold the truth.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 6:19 am: | |
Hi Richard
I'm always interested in these oral traditions, etc (e.g. the nun's story). I'm just not sure how much we can build on them.
But I suppose my attitude's like yours, in a way : if we see an alleyway, why not have a quick walk down it? If it turns out to be a blind alley, we can always come back again...I hope!
Robert |
John Ruffels
Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 8:03 am: | |
Hello Everyone,
Getting back to Sergeant Stephen White,I wonder if
the possessor of such an amazing story (true or false) would be content with having it published just once.
Now I know he did not publish it.But it was obviously based upon some note or report or fictional story he had composed and was possibly found amongst his effects and subsequently published in the Dundee newspaper.
From details of his career supplied to me in 1977
by the Assistant Departmental Records Officer,New Scotland Yard,White retired on October 15,1900.He died in 1919.I wonder just what he did in the intervening years?
I wonder if he dined out on this story.Lots of policemen with lesser stories have spun them into a retirement nest-egg.
So, has the Steve White story been published elsewhere? And does he have surviving relatives
-in Scotland or England?
Surely a point worth following up.
By the way, White was promoted to Local Inspector in December, 1894 after returning to Whitechapel in April, 1893.So he was no dunce. |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
"He was about five feet ten inches in height"
Perhaps I am in error, but IF this was a sighting of JtR, isn't the only account that fits with a man of Tumblety's height?? Tumblety's height, of course, is frequently cited as a reason to exclude him as a suspect.
Of course, the age is all wrong.....
Sir Robert |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 84
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 4:06 pm: | |
Hello, everyone!
Beautiful day today. Well, I've been re-reading all my source material on Eddowes' murder, with relation to this thread, and regarding the possibility of a set-up to capture Jack.
On page 199 of 'The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook' By Evans and Skinner, is a report from Inspector James McWilliam, head of the Detective Department, City of London Police. The report is dated 27 October, 1888. It begins like this:
"I beg to report with reference to the recent murders in Whitechapel, that acting upon stringent orders issued by the commissioner with a view to preventing if possible a repetition of the murders which had previously been committed in Whitechapel and to keep close observation upon all Prostitutes frequenting public houses and walking the streets, extra men in plain clothes have been employed by this department since August last to patrol the Eastern portion of the City...........
Dectective Constables Halse, Marriott, & Outram who had been searching the passages of houses in the immeadiate neighbourhood of the spot where the murder was committed (&where doors are left open all night) on hearing of the murder at 1.55am at once started off in various directions to look for suspected persons."
So it seems like the whole area around Mitre Square was being watched, simply because the police feared the killer would strike there, as well as Whitechapel. It doesn't seem like there was any specific reason to watch the area, it seems like the police were being extremely vigilant, is all.
So Blenkinsop's visitor theoretically could have been one of those plain clothes detectives, but I doubt it because the report then goes on to say:
"The Enquiry is still being actively followed up, but the Police are at a great disadvantage in this case in consequence of the want of indentity, no one having seen the deceased from the time she was discharged from Bishopsgate Station until her body was found at 1.45 am, except three gentlemen who were leaving the Imperial Club in Duke Street at 1.35 am....."
There is nothing in this report that states that any detective even saw Eddowes. I find it extremely hard to believe that this is part of some cover-up, because they let Eddowes get killed in some kind of set-up.
I can't remember where I read that a lady had written to the police and suggested an idea that female detectives could be employed, as it was likely the women in the area would open up to another woman, and give information that might be important. Well, the reply seemed to be that while this idea was well-intentioned, it was clearly ludicrous that women could be employed in such a manner.
Now, George Hutchinson (a *man*) walking around with a Police Officer, is different to sending a drunken prostitute out into the night, on the off chance she might run into Jack.
On reflection, I don't think Eddowes told the Police that she knew who Jack was, that night. If she had given them his name, I think they would have brought him in for questioning, and there would be some record of it. If she had given them just a description, then wouldn't this description have been circulated around all departments? But there are no records of this, either.
Robert: Yes, I don't think Eddowes was going straight home, either. I don't think she wanted a 'good hiding'. I think she was trying to get some money, so that she could at least say she had been to see her daughter.
One thing I did find interesting, though- is that John Kelly told the Police that two women told him that Catherine was locked up. I'm guessing they were part of the crowd gathered whilst she was being a fire engine. So if John knew, then we can safely assume that others had heard, too. Perhaps 'Jack' had heard this too. He may have known where to find her, and he may have heard that she was going to turn him in.
Perhaps a thread on how Eddowes may have known Jack's identity, would be in order. Perhaps we should be looking at what we know of her friends, or aquaintances. This does point to a local man, in my opinion...
|
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Marie, John everyone
Marie I have to disagree with some of your points, Catharine Eddowes was sober enough to be released by the police otherwise they wouldn't have let her go. Also I don't believe for a minute that she thought she was going to get a hiding from John Kelly. The description given of him was 'quiet and inoffensive', he was a sick man with a bad cough and Kidney complaint.
I might concede that the City police didn't follow her from the station, but then would they admit to it? following her, then losing her to get murdered? also I don't think the reports you mention are complete (there's no mention of P.C. Harvey for example). There's no mention of James Blenkingsop, also to two unidentified witnesses in St Jame's Place the source for this is a newspaper cutting from 'The Dailly Telegraph' 12 November 1888, which was preserved in the Scotland Yard files, so they took it seriously.
And 'IF' Sergeant White was involved, he wouldn't have reported to the City police, as he was a Metropolitan man, and so shouldn't have been there.
You did however highlight something which may be important, you quoted "extra men in plain clothes have been employed by this department since August last to patrol the eastern portion of the City..." Curious, as Mary Ann Nichols was murdered on the last day of August, so did he mean after Martha Tabram? in which case did someone know there were going to be more?
I agree we should start a thread on "how Eddowes may have know Jack's identity.
John, Sergeant White was 46 when he retired which is quite young, but I don't think there is anything odd about it. Inspector Abberline was 49 when he retired, and he took up private enquiry work, so maybe Stephen White did the same.
Rob |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 88
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
Good Morning Rob,
Well, I've no doubt that John Kelly was 'quiet and innofensive'. By and large, I think he was a good man who cared for Catharine a lot (he did pawn his boots for their breakfast). And I know he was sick. However, if he was capable of 'jobbing around the markets', and 'going hopping', I think he was capable of giving Kate a slap. From his statements, he seemed to have very definite ideas about what was acceptable behaviour for her.
We should remember that the Victorian era was quite different in what they considered acceptable, to nowadays. The Policeman who let Eddowes out, seemed to think it was 'quite right' that she should get a hiding, because she had 'no right' to get drunk.
However, please don't misunderstand- I don't think that when Catharine said she was expecting a 'good hiding', she meant she was afraid for her life. Nor do I think Kelly would have seriously injured her. But I *do* think she wasn't much in the mood to go home to his displeasure, just yet.
I don't believe that the City Police followed Eddowes from the station. Not trying to be stubborn, but I'd really have to see some more evidence before I make that leap of faith. Hence, I can't in all honesty believe that White was part of any set-up involving Catharine.
That quote about August, WAS really interesting, wasn't it? I'll have to do a lot more digging around, to see if I can come up with anything else that supports that. Funny, because I've never considered Tabram a Ripper victim. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 7:32 am: | |
Hallo everyone
I agree it looks a bit fishy that Eddowes should have gone to a place that was a bit removed from her usual haunts, and then be found murdered there a few hours later. But I don't quite see how the theory that Eddowes was trying to point out the Ripper after she left the station, is supposed to work.
If she'd just seen some man threatening some woman on some day or other, it's unlikely the police would have spared an officer to accompany her around. Or, if she'd seen someone at one of the murder sites, someone whose face she could remember but whose name she didn't know, why didn't she tell the police at the time? Why wait till the end of September? Surely she wasn't cynically waiting for the reward to come up?
Her remark "I think I know him" seems to suggest that she had a definite name in mind. But then, why couldn't she just tell the police, who could have then either questioned the man, or followed him around from where he lived? She'd still have qualified for the reward, if she had the right man.
On the other hand, "I've come back to earn the reward" makes it sound as if she'd actually broken off her holiday for the purpose, as if she was on to something big. So I'm a bit puzzled - unless her claim was just bravado to cover up the fact that she'd had a rotten holiday?
All this is assuming that she really did make the claim or that it hadn't been garbled in transmission.
Robert |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
Hello All
If you read White's "eye-witness" account and place a picture of MJD beside it, it appears as if he is describing in fine detail MJD. This raises a number of concerns with me. Druitt
was believed to be the Ripper on the shallow grounds that his death corresponds nicely to what was presumed to be the end of the murders.But did the police really believe this- since they were taking people in for questioning and bringing eye-witnesses in to look at suspects well into the 1890's. I simply don't believe White could have been the suject of the encounter he detailed in a relatively dark location. "...delicate nostrils indeed.."
This story may have been a pub staple for White to entertain the crowd in his later years
It does not correspomnd exactly with any of the murder scenes and as others have pointed out he was not supposed to be there in the first place.
While I'm speculating I may as well state my belif that JTR had more time to perform the Eddowes murder than is commonly believed. P.C. Harvey was dismissed from the force a year later. The only reason I can find is that it was for misconduct. Harvey may well have been seeking relief from a rainy, damp night rather than walking his beat. I realize that this is nothing more than conjecture. However I draw upon my experience in an earlier life as a security supervisor and the conduct of some of my underlings.
I think a thread is needed on the situation regarding Eddowes' belief that she knew the Ripper.
Best Regards
Gary
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
