|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through July 01, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Locating Buck's Row Murder Site:
Archive through July 01, 2001
Author: The Viper
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 08:13 pm |        | Yes, Jon. Testimony about that is by no means clear. It seems you either believe Cross or PC Mizen. There is a conflict.
The Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian records this:-
'Constable G. Mizen, 56H, stated that at a quarter-past four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.'
The same paper also reported this in Cross' evidence:-
They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness [Mizen], and told him that there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back.
This contrasts more than somewhat with the detailed testimony elsewhere, notably in the East London Observer:-
The Coroner [to Cross]: Did you see Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row?
The witness: No, sir. I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's-row, and the deceased. There was nobody in Buck's-row when we left.
The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
The Witness: No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, but he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row?
The Witness: No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.
There is a conflict of witness testimony here. Which do you think is correct?
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 10:01 pm | | Exactly, V.
Having just gone through the relevant "Telegraph" transcript, I am tempted to think that Cross must have been misheard or somehow misreported by the paper. He tells Baxter that he did not see Neil in Buck's Row, but only moments before, while relating the discovery of Nichols' body, he said that "they heard a policeman coming," and off they scarper. Cross did say further on that he was late to work, but even so, it seems odd that he and Paul would leave Nichols if they thought a policeman was coming their way in order to proceed on and hope to meet a constable during their journey.
And how did they know Neil was coming along, anyway? The tread of his boots? The flash of his lamp? The slightly off-key crooning of "hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side. . .doo, doo doo, doo, doo doo doo doo, doo doo. . .?"
Nothing more to say, really. This is an excellent discussion, and I have enjoyed catching up on it.
CMD |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 10:57 pm | | | I've really nothing intelligent to add, but agree this is an excellent discussion. Though I dismiss most of the eye witnesses, I've always had this irrational hunch that Patrick Mulshaw saw Jack the Ripper in Winthrop Street. 'Watchman, old man....' Considering Buck's Row & Winthrop Street were parallel, would not this mysterious figure almost had to have looped around the corner, and had been doubling back from the direction he came? |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 06:27 am | | Thank you again to Chris (both) and Ed for your comments.
Chris-George: thank you for the caution, from now on I will pay attention to that.
Ed: your comments are indeed very nice, but just take what is given since nothing is hidden believe me.
Since this site is simply the best thing I've seen on Internet and it is an example of organisation, professionality and seriousness beside being the meeting point of a lot of incredibly cultivated people I'm really very glad if, on finding a real personal pleasure, I may contribute to whatever extent to the development of new theories or simply digging out some simple fact to which nobody had thought before.
Unfortunately "Jack" or "Jacks" or "Jacobs" or whatever is so a vast subject that it is a huge consuming time matter and it will prevent me to consacrate on it all the time this site (and the people who created it)would deserve.
Moreover since till last december (when I bought quite by accident Sugden's book in a Brussel's library to spend some hours on the train) I firmly believed that Jack was a royal with his friends and that everybody knew it I still must learn a lot of things on it.
Ed: You are a mine of knowledge on every aspect of the case and I must say in all honesty that of all the theories and the Jacks I've read in the last months (believe me a lot) nothing convince me more than what you say or, if I may, what you do not say.
The way you build your theories and the points you get by them are astonishing. Really and sincerly congratulations.
Sometimes I have the impression that you know things that only Jack could have known.
So in answering you about my family ties with Rocky Graziano - none, I take the opportunity to ask yours with Jack ( or at least one of them )- are there ? (you may answer by numbers and letters).
Now one question, Ed, regarding one point of your theories.
You stated some time ago that these women had been previously (in the day of their death) accosted and a meeting for later in the day had been convened using gifts and kindness. You did it bringing forward in each case some very convincing elements (well, that's at least my point of view).
Now what about, for example in the case of Mary Nichols, if she, being drunk, felt on the pavement of Whitechapel Road going to Buck's Row, hurt herself very badly in the head and was brought to the hospital where unconscious she would have spent all the night? Or, more simply, what about if she got her doss money and didn't need to go out and look for it that night?
I mean, did they (the Jacks) had some other "dates" on which they could relieve on in case the women didn't come.
Did they tried every night till it was the good one ( the victim had come )?
Thank again. Graziano |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 01:34 pm | | | Thank's Graziano, I really don't know what to say, my own work comes entirely on the back of those who work at documenting for public records for books and internet sites like this one. Concerning your last question, it's the little clues that a criminal leaves 'unthinkingly' that has always interested me. Why did Goldstien stay on the right side of the road when turning left at the board school? Most people turning left at Fairclough Street cross the road about twenty yards before they reach Fanny Mortimers House. The cafe in Spectacle Alley that Goldstien stated he left on his way home via Berner Street joined Backchurch Lane almost exactly where the man reported in the Daily Star wearing a sailors cap was seen.(Someone should research the cafe!) Why make such a fuss about the man and woman that Brown saw on the corner of Berner Street, when Goldstien must have passed the exact same couple! If these women were carried, and they were! The killers would not stand over the body thinking if we leave her legs and feet in that position it might indicate she was carried! Because they have other things on their mind. This weakness is our strenth. For example, I can't help asking why Jack would kill Stride then on his way to kill Eddows do nothing to change his appearance except place a red scarf around his neck. Or could there have been two killers and this was an unthinking discrepancy in the planned coordination of their clothing. ED, have to go to work. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 03:27 pm | | | RJ - I expect you know this, but Bob Hinton, in his book "From Hell" thinks the same thing you do in regards to Mulshaw and his mysterious conversationalist. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 06:26 pm | | I suspect that most of this can be explained quite simply !
Firstly , PC Neil. His report makes sense if we replace ' Brady Street ' with ' Baker's Row ' , thus Neil was walking westwards along Buck's Row when he found the body. This makes sense of the following statements : that Neil was walking on the right side of the street ( ie North side ) and he " went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway." ie outside Brown's Yard ; and it explains how Cross and Paul might have heard a copper behind them ( his boots on the cobbles probably ) and so decided to scarper to avoid being caught near the body.
Since Ed has told us Brady Street was originally to the west of Buck's Row its probable Neil made a mistake because of this.
I don't see any problems with PC Thain's actions , he was probably wrong to collect his cape before fetching the doctor but thats by-the-by.
Since PC Mizen went for the ambulance , and this happened before Inspector Spratling arrived at 4.30am , then I am presuming he is wrong with his timing of meeting Cross at 4.15am. Since Mizen was H division and the other policemen J Division there might have been a bit of inter-divisional rivalry between them and Mizen might have made his actions look a bit better than they really were. Or he may have been misquoted. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 06:40 pm | | The Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian didn't even get Mizen's police number right , they said it was 56H when it was in fact 55H , so its very possible there are other mistakes in that article.
Here is my version of events :
Cross and Paul find the body , they hear footsteps approaching behind them so they scurry off , PC Neil arrives from the east and discovers the body too. Flashing his lamp around looking for help , he catches PC Thain and sends him for the doctor , having left his cape at the slaughterhouse Thain gets that first and then heads off , he tells the slaughtermen there has been a murder. Meanwhil Neil has headed off towards Baker's Row looking for further assistance. Cross and Paul have encountered PC Mizen and tell him there is the body of a woman in Buck's Row. Mizen heads off to see the body and meets Neil who sends him to get the ambulance , Neil returns to the scene of the crime and begins to wake up people in the neighbouring houses , Inspector Spratling arrives about 4.30am.
Simon |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:36 pm | | Hello Simon, yes, maybe, but what's the logic in scarping or scurrying off to avoid being caught by a PC near the body (Cross could have done it even before hearing Paul) just to tell some yards away and minutes after to another PC that in fact they were?
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:44 pm | | Then if it is very possible that an eastender could be confused by the changing of the names of the streets and thus to their location when interviewed it's doubtful that such a mistake could occur to a policeman at an inquest.
Graziano. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 12:09 pm | | Hi All,
Simon, I was the person who transcribed the article from The Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian for the Press Project. We normally work from photocopies of microfiche copies of these century-old newspapers. As such, the quality of the reproduction is sometimes a problem.
PC Mizen's police number was fairly well garbled in the copy from which I was working, so I made a best guess. The error is probably mine, so please don't be misled into thinking the entire article is rife with errors for that reason alone.
Regards,
Jim |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Jim's comment about the quality of some of the material we have to work from is correct. It's just one of the hazards. To counter the problem, as well as to pick up the inevitable transcription errors, we do have proof-readers to check all the copy.
I have double checked the document photocopy concerned and in this instance the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian did given Mizen's number as 56 H. So did The Times. That sort of slip could easily have resulted from a compositor's error. It should not be assumed that the entire report is unreliable. We know, of course, that the newspapers got things wrong and that's why it is important to read different accounts.
Two separate references in the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook confirm that Mizen's number was 55 H. Interestingly enough, Insp. Spratling's report of 31st August refers to the constable as Smizen!
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 03:17 pm | | Hello all, somewhere (maybe on those boards) some time ago I read that in those days when a PC found a body he couldn't move from the spot and had to stay near it (I think I got over it reading the case of Frances Coles) till he received some help from other PCs.
Were there such precises rules also for the use of the whistle? I do not find any indication anywhere.
Thank you. Graziano |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Graziano , my belief is that Cross and Paul disappeared when they heard the policeman approaching behind them because ... well , lets face it , it looks suspicious to be found standing over the body of a possibly dead-or-unconscious woman found lying in the street doesn't it ? PC Neil would have been well within his rights to take them in for questioning or even arrest them. Far better to disappear and tell the first policeman what you've seen don't you think ?
Here is a new point to ponder : was Buck's Row really a quiet thoroughfare suitable for a prostitute to take her john after all ? Not only was it patrolled by a constable , but what about this from The Times 18 September 1888 , relating to the questioning of Emma Green.
" By the Jury - she ( Green ) was a light sleeper and had a scream been given she would have heard it , though people often went through Buck's-Row and there was often a great noise in it. "
( See ' Ultimate Sourcebook ' p.39 , italics mine. )
This seems to imply that Buck's Row was busy at night , in general. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 05:18 pm | | Simon, in this case I think there is a difference to make between Cross and Paul.
Paul found Cross over the body.
He could have been suspicious. What could have he thought in seeing Cross flying the policeman.
I had been in his place I would have waited the PC.
They didn't see any blood, I agree that this is not the definite evidence that there was not but it's the evidence that even after having touched the woman they didn't have it on their hands.
So why to be suspicious about them?
Did they carry a knife?
They didn't see any cut, so why fear to be caught with such a weapon?
Cross was a hard and regular worker. He was so at Pickford's for more than twenty years (Sugden). He was not the kind of person to fear contact with the police because of antecedents (mine).
If they heard a policeman approaching they knew that she had been found after their leaving, so why to bother to tell to another PC since he could ask them to go back with him (they were late).
That Buck's Row was quite busy, I totally agree with you.
That it was not a good place for a prostitute I do not.
First because in the vicinity there were a lot of workers at night. They were hardworking men, without the wife nearby, and it was at night.
Remember Tomkins (or Mumford I don't remember) who said that women use to came at night ( in the slaughterhouse).
Then because had his "John" become a "Jack" she could have obtained help quite rapidly by simply screaming.
And if Ed Carter's theory is right (concerning a rendez-vous by the murderers) this could be a point for him since the woman had to feel secure.
( to be continued). Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 05:21 pm | | | Remeber though , Robert Paul would have been late for work had he tarried over the corpse , as would Cross have been. Better to hurry on ! |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Simon, in fact it was for "Jack" that the place was not so good.
A PC to the west (Thain), another to the east (Mizen), a third on the feet (Neil) and a fourth as a potential surprise at any moment ( Sgt Kirby).
Then gatemen, slaughtermen, night watchmen all over the place.
And houses with plenty of people.
Could I say Jack would have better planifying?
And that planifying is always easier when you already know?
Could it this be another point for Ed's theory?
Of course there is always the possibility that being a "lunatic" he didn't understand the situation and thus the risks for him of being caught.
Now, let me come back to the possibility that Mary Nichols has been killed in the 5 minutes between the two discoveries of her body. This could mean that "Jack" had to hide. Where? I do really not know since with all the wharves, cottages, yards, courts, stables, gates, grids, and whatever other I'm really completely lost.
But if "Jack" had to hide it means that ther was a shelf.
And if there was a shelf there is also the possible explanation as why nobody heard Nichols screaming or yelling or any row whatever.
(to be continued). Graziano |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 06:13 pm | | Now Simon, another point.
I don't know London ( it won't last ) and I'm completely lost in the discussion regarding the real site because of the vocabulary and I just have one map of the East End of 1862, but since it has been published in Bruce Paley's book, I think it is reliable.
The book is quite small and it is not easy to read so maybe I will commit some errors in the names but I think it is not very important.
Now, this is the point (I'm not sure of his accuracy but we are here to speak).
I take Buck's Row from the east to the west and I see that it crosses the following streets:
- Baker's Row
- Thomas street ( a good shot west of the Board School)
- Court street
and then the Board School and the bifurcation Buck's Row, Winthrop street.
East London Adviser 01.08.888: " The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's Row, Thomas street , Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning when he discovered a woman". From Neil we know that in this case discover means that at first he noticed/spotted the body.
Why did they precise "Thomas street"?
The only logical explanation I find is that he was at the crossing of Buck's Row and Thomas street when he spotted the body.
I do not verstehen where Ed says the body was (sometimes the way he writes is too difficult for me)but if Neil was at that crossing it is sufficient to look at the picture of Buck's Row in the 60s published in the A-Z to become aware that it is impossible that the body laid where it is said under the same picture.
(to be continued). Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 06:35 pm | | Now, of course, you may say that the newspaper got it wrong and that is only one reference.
Yes, of course, and it is also only my interpretation.
But there is another fact.
Ed says that Neil and Thain discovered the body together and that Neil couldn't see Thain from the spot.
This for the moment I do not know, I don't have any reason not to believe it and if it says that he has surely good reasons, but I want to understand by myself and for the moment I didn't manage (I just see maybe something wrong with the whistle).
What about Mizen?
Neil said that in seeing another Constable in Baker's Row he dispatched him for the ambulance.
Mizen said at the same inquest, corroborating Neil, that in going to the spot (not arriving on it) he saw Constable Neil by the direction of whom he went for the ambulance.
From the "classical" site (the one seen in the picture I indicate in the previous message) it is absolutely not possible to see Baker's Row.
Well, that's what I think.
Finished. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 06:56 pm | | " Bucks-Row , Thomas Street , Whitechapel " probably only means that Buck's Row was a street that led off the more well known Thomas Street : just as Thomas street is a part of Whitechapel , here we have Buck's-Row being listed as a part of Thomas Street.
As yet , Ed hasn't produced any evidence to prove PCs Neil and Thain found the body at the same time. Thain passed the end of Bucks Row while patrolling in Brady Street and saw a constable flashing his lamp for help ; reading between the lines it looks like earlier he had dropped his cape off with the slaughtermen because it was a hot night and he didn't want to carry it around ; he wouldn't admit that though because it would have been dereliction of duty and would show he had been off his beat. He probably popped in for a drink now and then. But thats not the same thing as saying he found the body at the same time as Neil.
Simon |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:01 pm | | Graziano,
You raise a good question about whether standing orders required policemen to remain with bodies they discovered. These regulations were in place in 1889. Whether they pre-dated the Ripper murders, or whether they were introduced as a result of the events of 1888, I'm unsure. Maybe somebody who does know could clarify that.
It was common when referring to the smaller streets for an adjacent street to be given too in order to help identify it. You will find numerous examples like 'Dorset Street, Commercial Street' and 'Berner Street, Commercial Road' in the records. The reference you quote from the E.L.A. is another example of this. It does not mean that PC Neil spotted the body from the intersection with Thomas Street.
For a description of Buck's Row at night written two years after the murders try this from the Pall Mall Budget.
Good maps are available from Alan Godfrey Maps at competitive prices. They will mail internationally. In the meantime you might want to consult the maps at Casebook Productions. Click on the Explore JTR section of the site.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:12 pm | | Viper
A policeman, on finding a body in the street was required to raise the alarm but stay with the body until help arrived, and unless a higher ranking PC arrived the officer in charge was to be the one who found the body.
I will find a reference for the above if necessary, I have it somewhere. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:15 pm | | It was an old English tradition of giving a street address or location was to name your street (row), then the nearest larger street followed by the nearest large road.
There was a time when the size of a route was determined by its name, a row, a street, a road, etc. Maps were supposed to strictly observe a succession from smaller to larger (or vise-versa). This tradition was rarely uniform and nowadays is meaningless.
Whitechapel Road is larger than Commercial Street, etc. A road was the main artery, then it branches off into streets and streets into smaller examples (Lane, Row, Place, etc).
All outdated stuff now.
I think it was supposed to help Postman Pat, before postal codes were developed. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 11:28 am | | Graziano, I am no relation to Jack, but I know him, and, that the man who spoke to Patrick Mulshaw, was in truth, Jack.
I also have his hand writing obtained several; years after one of the killers transcribed it.
I am awaiting his photo from America, would you like a copy when it arrives? He left us 12221 ABHE.
Concerning the actual murder site in Bucks Row, first we must look at all the options before coming to any conclusions; beginning with one of the earlier books, ie :'Jack The Ripper': by Daniel Farson.
Daniel Farson appears to have thought that Polly's body was discovered at the (north/eastern) end of Bucks Row.
We must also look at Abrahams, who wrote; Murder Madness, ect, ect, because he also views that Polly's body was discovered in much the same location as Farson.
Strangley, this location actually makes sense! Firstly, it makes sense of the position of the wharfes in the 1881 census; because the census claims that both 'Essex Wharf' and New Cottage were attached. It also seems to claim that numbers 1-29 began in the west, and on the other side of the road.
The above theory put forward by Farson/Abrahamson, makes sense of the fact that Neil, could have heard Thain's footsteps when passing the Brady Street end of Bucks Row. Thain would also have seen the light from Neil's bullseye lamp. Neil would have had no reason to whistle or shout from this site because it was much nearer the Brady Street end of Bucks Row.
There was also a sewage works nearby in Brady Street, and this could account for the sewage works watched by Patrick Mulshaw.
Let's look at PC Neil's beat, it included patrolling east/west along The Whitechapel Road; Thomas Street; and then, west/east along Bucks Row. If Farson/ Abrahamson were correct, this would indeed place the police officer travelling down the southside of Bucks Row, then, on seeing Polly he would have crossed over to the northside!
However, PC Neil's entire beat should have only taken him twelve minutes, yet he claimed the last time he patrolled along Bucks Row was thirty minutes before he discovered Polly's body. So where was he? Thain also claimed to have been patrolling past Bucks Row exactly thirty minutes before he was called to the scenre of the murder.
At inquest, Thain stated that 'a fellow officer had previously dropped his cape off at the slaughterhouse'. He also claimed that he did not mention the murder to the slaughterhouse workers and that he stopped to collect his cape because he thought the inspector might send him somewhere.
At the time Pollky was discovered, neither Neil or Thain seem to have been sure that she was dead! More importantly, no Inspector had arrived at the scene of the murder to instruct Thain to go anywhere! So why did he need the cape?
If you read the reports with great care, they indicate that even Neil's superior officers did not believe his story. If Neil was not truthful, it is obvious that neither was Thain. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 11:42 am | | | Best wishes ED. To be continued. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 02:31 pm | | Ed , the accepted view of the Nichol's murder is that the murder site was on the south side of Buck's Row , just east of the Board school.
Where , in relation to the assumed murder site , is Farson's murder site ? |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 06:05 pm | | ED
Would you mind explaining why you say Farson appears to have thought the body was at the north east end of Bucks Row?
I have Farson's book and I see no intimation along those lines at all.
I also have Abrahamsen's book and although I have not read it cover to cover, I still cannot find anything to indicate he may think the body was found where you say.
Can you be more specific?
I trust you are not simply using the balloon symbols provided on the maps in both books, these balloons are there to indicate the street, not the murder site. If that is the depth of your research my good man you deserve a good floggin 
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 06:32 pm | | In all fairness to ED, Abrahamsen does have an X too far to the east end of Bucks row. He also places 'Barbers horse slaughter house' opposite the X.
So, ED is off the hook 50% for being misled by Abrahamsen.....but hows about Farson?, I dont see anything in his book to suggest an 'east-end of Bucks Row' location for the murder site.
Jon
P.S. The trouble with a hand sketched map in Abrahamsen's book is that it is totally out of scale and likely the 'dogs-leg' on Bucks Row is too far to the west. In reality Whitechapel Stn is slightly west of the board school (but southerly on Whitechapel Rd) and Abrahamsen has it east of the 'dogs-leg' (board school offset). |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 12:13 am | | Jon, Christopher, Both authors indicate the site on a map, and whilst I agree that this type of information can not be taken seriously. In this particular case both had to be checked out because of information that I had previously discovered in the contents in the 1871 and 1881 census reports.
The 1871 census places 'Malthouse Cottage' near to Essex Wharf, the 1881 census report shows Malthouse Cottage is gone, New Cottage now appears in much the same location.
The Albion Brewery was sited just north of Bucks Row in Brady Street,situated just before the sewage works, and therefore the link between Malthouse and the brewery had to be checked out.
Heelsrule, welcome, When I get the time I will post some information concerning Polly. Remember that the reports concerning the murders can not be entirely trusted. In one report concerning Polly, Thain is supposed to have said ' Neil was about half way down the Row. On researching further, I discovered two separate reports quoting Thain to say ' Neil was down the Row on the path'.
Polly was discovered near 'New Cottage' I picture myself as a journalist walking down Bucks Row in 1888 with this information. I pass the 'south/western end of Bucks Row where five cottages have recently been demolished, but only one 'new' cottage built on the end. ED. PS read Phillip Sugden's 'the complete History of Jack The Ripper'. Christopher, or was it Simon, anyway, '39' is the number of restrictions on Shabbat corresponding to the building of a temple. The correspondence is only complete when the 40th level is included. The 39 prohibitions can be legislated for' laid out in full for all to be clear of the details. The forthieth can only be hinted at; as it is up to each individual to reach for that transendent spark that makes their Shabbat holy, in order to obtain renewal in the higher place. ED. PS, Hence 'for-nothing' in the Goulstone Street grafitti. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 10:28 am | | Polly's abdomen was mutilated to obtain primal material, this is the most jelously guarded secret, but to be perfect, the philosophers stone must be made from the corner stone rejected by the builder.
The primal marterial: The alchemist must take this substance to start his operations. Hassidic Jews were practicing alchemists. Primal material.
Familiar to all men, both young and old, is found in the country, in the village, in the town, in all things created by God; yet it is despised by all. Rich and poor handle it every day. It is cast into the street by servant maids.Children play with it. Yet no one prizes it, though next to the human soul, it is the most beautiful and most precious thing on earth and has the power to pull down kings and princes. Nevertheless, it is esteemed the vilest and meanest of all earthly things.
Polly and Annie's rings were removed by the alchemist in his practices with the aim to make the philosophers stone which is a red Orb, like an egg. Think of the description of the man seen by Hutchinson, remember the red stone the gold chain and the 'seal', remember, this was not a watch, Hutchinson describes a seal; this is Solomons Seal. The ulitmate aim, to make the philosophers stone and then transmute to silver and gold! The alchemist must be taken as seriously in his beliefs, as the clergyman in his belief in God. Remember the second line of the grafitti and the site that I pointed to earlier including: men+hat. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/egyptian_symbols.html ED.
The Solomons seal, triangles pointing up and down indicate that opposites are working together, in this case air and water, earth and fire. The reason that spirit of wine is precious to the alchemist is that it brings fire and water together. Earth, air water and fire come together with primal material to complete the transumtaition process. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 01:51 pm | | | Men+ hat meaning exchange from lower to higher. Now link some of the letters in the graffiti together, starting from above the 'n' in line three that has an arrow attached to the stem (the letter'n' denotes 'gates of understanding' in Hebrew). Ignore the 'n' but link the letter 'h' above it in line two in 'hat', with the letter 'a' in' are' in line one, then carry on by linking the 't' in 'hat' with the 'e' in are. Then go back to the beginning of lines one and two and carry on in the same way, untill you can spell: 'hate the Jew'. Now by joining the links between these letters you will make solomon's seal. The word 'be' in line four actually reads will not b-up-down. The word B-lamed is actually 'B' 'lamed'---lamed being the letter 'L' of the Hebrew alphabet. This denotes above place of spiritual teaching. B-lamed and, b-Blamed, denotes babel or temple in Hebrew. For nothing' in line five means renewal in a higher place. Therefore 'B' lamed for nothing means take the 'B' up to where the arrows point to on the 'w' and the arrow that is supposed to be a 'b' and spell atbash the earliest Hebrew code. This is done by reading down-up--remember, not up down. I have enough evidence to prove this with out doubt, I will carry on tomorrow. Off to work ED. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:14 pm | | | It was my good self who mentioned 39 Ed , your answer is very impressive ! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:18 pm | | ED
Isnt this mystery complicated enough? |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:23 pm | | | Jon, before I go to work I am just trying to point out that Polly's killers had the skills of both the shocet and the alchemist. Best wishes ED. I can prove my work! |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:26 pm | | | PS look over the site I pointed to above it's very informative. ED. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:59 pm | | Thanks ED
I'm well familiar with hieroglyphics in there normal context, but when we start into astrology and alchemy and related subjects I better leave it to others. I lose interest in that line of investigation.
Maybe "Row'C' Orion & the little people" can follow it.
When you get back to the topographical issues of Bucks Row I'll get interested again.
Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 07:57 pm | | Dear Ed,
I think you are aware that the so-called "Atbash
Code" is a more ancient and culturally-widespread method of encryption than you are indicating... in this particular instance?
Still have'nt read Singh's book...but I thought you'd like to know that when his book was published I sent him the following encypted Limerick published in The Sunday Times, on the anniversary of the so-called Diana Tapes:
"Encrypt herein a clue
via earwigs at GCHQ:
Place Santa's name upright
In grandpapes soma bright."
Jon...our little folk are presently rehearsing an Ivor Novello number called, Jack and the Kidney- Bean Stalker...would'nt you be wanting to know. Lots o line-dancing.
Rosey :-) |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 05:54 am | | Rosemary, I have not finished explaining the grafitti in full yet but it is fairly conclusive. Remember Jeramiah 26 of the Old Testiment links the word babel with the atbash code, as does the grafitti. Best wishes. ED
Back to Bucks Row, but on the way do you mind if we drop into George Buildings to look at Martha Tabrams legs? It is relevant!
Martha was discovered on her back, she had suffered 38 stab wounds,above, or on, the stomach, one below. there was no sign of a struggle, her hands by her sides fists clenched. Her dress was folded up to her thighs!
She was in much the same position as Annie Chapman!
Barratt, who saw Martha lying there thought that 'connection' had taken place because her legs were in abduction; slumped out, and open at the knees and lying on the outsteps of the feet. The doctor, refuted this, he saw absolutely no reason to think connection had taken place.
Why were there no signs of a struggle? Why no noise? Why did she clench her fists if she died of hypovolaemic shock? And if no connection took place, why did he inflict 38 stab wounds through her clothing, yet lift her dress to inflict the single stab wound below the abdomen, and whilst in his crazed frenzy?
She was chloroformed, he lifted her dress to pick up the legs and she was moved by two people! |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 07:31 am | | If we are to believe the present theory concerning the location of Polly's death there were no numbered houses at the extreme west end of Bucks Row; the wide section between the Board School and Thomas street.
If the house numbers did start just east of the Board School this places New Cottage, east and practically next to the board school. This could Make sense because the Board School was rebuilt sometime between 1874 and 1891. This would mean that Polly was killed out side 'New Cottage', however since it's destruction and the the construction of 'a' new cottage nearby, everyone has assumed that this is indeed 'New Cottage'. However, on researching further I also discovered another school just to the west of Bucks Row and this also needed to be checked out. Sorry little time today, off to work.
PS Rosemary, if you move the 'B' up to where the arrows indicate and replace it with it's atbash counterpart which is 's'. (Hebrew alphabet only runs from the letter a up to the letter
t.
Now read down from the 's' at the same angle as, the capital letters J and B (Jachin and Boez) to the left, you will read the letter S H L M sited exactly between the J and B. Do you know which letter are written on the keystone above, between Jachin and Boez at the entrance to Solomon's temple? SHLM.
Now we have; the 'Juwes; the three men who killed Hiram Abiff, the architect of Solomon's temple; the words 'men' and 'hat' both were alchemisic words known to hassidic Jews; 'lamed' which is the letter 'L' of the Hebrew alphabet; atbash the Hebrew substitution cypher; Capital letters 'J' and 'B' in in appropriate places and the letters SHLM above, which are the letters above the pillars Jachin and Boez, the pillars at the entrance Solomon's temple. The evidence is becoming a little weighty, do you think.
Do not, however make any conclusions as of yet! Best wishes ED. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 06:52 pm | | R.J. & CMD
With respect to the statement of Mulshaw and his 'passing stranger', the timing would appear to be a bit off for this man to be the killer.
The way it goes (without digging up verbatim references) the three slaughterhouse workers Tompkins, Mumford & Brittan all agreed that the first they heard of the murder was when P.C. Thain called by for his cape, this was stated to be approx 4:15am, and they proceeded to the murder spot directly and the only ones there were a doctor and three or four constables.
Mulshaw encountered the passing stranger who alerted him to the murder at which time he proceeded to the murder spot and recalls that there were three or four policemen there with 5 or 6 workers. Three of these must have been the slaughterhouse workers, as they said there were no workers there when they arrived. This then places Mulshaws encounter with the 'passing stranger' at a little before 4:30am at the earliest. Something like 45 mins to an hour after the murder took place.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
