Author: Monty
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 12:26 pm |        |
Hello to you all,
This post is really for anyone who has visited Mitre sq recently but, what the hell, you all can join in.
On a recent journey I have visited the square. Now I know most of the surrounding buildings have changed, duhhh, but the actual cobbles remain...am I right ?
Now my question is this, as I enter the square from Dukes passage, Church passage in Jacks day, the passage is alot wider now than 1888. Am I correct again ?
Has anyone who has visited the square and walked down this passage, noticed the paving ? The way it is paved (in my view) shows quite clearly the original layout of the passage, its quite narrow, am I correct again ?
When you enter the square from Dukes passage the paving (Which is in thin slivers, sorry its the only way I can describe it) on the right turns away at a 45 degree angle for about 3ft and then turns to the right angle.
My main question is this, would this paving follow the outer walls of the warehouse that stood on the western side of the square, the one in which the NTM was working ?
It may seem pointless to most but it would help me in understanding the size of the square in 1888. If Im correct then the square was a lot smaller in 1888.
Thanks
Monty, who is hoping Mr Jay is reading.
 |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 02:34 pm | |
Hello Monty,
All I know about Mitre Square is that the house outside which poor Catherine Eddowes was butchered was occuppied by a City of London Policeman. Our research has shown it was the first house in London to be fitted with Double Glazing or even Triple Glazing as he never heard a thing. The census shows a Mr Zenith was living next door.
A&S |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 03:50 pm | |
Dear Monty,
May I direct you in to Ivor Edwards
and his metrological data of the East End.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 08:32 pm | |
Hi Monty!
My recollection is that Church Passage was indeed widened substantially when the lovely sinister covered alley was replaced by the horrid open space we now have. Can't help you over the paving, as I never looked closely at it.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Graham Jay
Friday, 16 August 2002 - 06:53 am | |
Hi Monty,
I've just been off mooching round Mitre Square, and have seen what you described as "slivers". If we are talking about the same things, then there are two rows at an angle a few feet apart. What struck me was that the two rows are not parallel to each other, which would suggest that they do not mark the original passage. Another point against this idea is that in many places (but not all) the rows cut through the paving slabs around them. My theory would be that the slabs have been cut through when someone has been laying or checking cables or pipes under the square.
There are also several access points in the square to underground cabling, obviously they would not have been there in 1888. In places you can see that the mortar round the cobblestones actually goes over the top of these points which suggests that the square has been dug up on occasion to put these in. This doesn't mean that the cobblestones are not the originals, just that they have been pulled up and replaced at least once. I guess the only way to find out for sure is to contact the Corporation of London to ask about the square's history of re-surfacing. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 16 August 2002 - 08:58 am | |
Monty,
Printed off your questions and had a quick refresher on the way to work this morning.
The actual cobbles remain...am I right ?
The line of the cobbles remains. As to whether they are the same, it is improbable, but not impossible.
As I enter the square from Dukes passage, Church passage in Jacks day, the passage is alot wider now than 1888. Am I correct again ?
Yes, very much so. Drawings and old photographs suggest that Church Passage was no more than four feet wide - possibly a bit less.
The way it is paved (in my view) shows quite clearly the original layout of the passage, its quite narrow, am I correct again ?
Probably. There is a definite camber on those paving stones, suggesting that they have been laid like that for drainage purposes. Yet there are no visible drains in the passage, so water will just run down into the square's cobbled area. It is likely that the lowest line of the paving follows an old gutter, which may very well have run along the side of the Great Synagogue and the warehouse buildings.
Would this paving follow the outer walls of the warehouse that stood on the western side of the square ?
The evidence strongly suggests not.
*** Addendum, 17/Aug/02 ***
There are two distinct lines in the paving stones which bear to the right. After studying the plans of F.W. Foster and the photograph in Odell's JTR in Fact & Fiction again, I think the wider and more pronounced one (which looks considerably more than three feet long) may well be following the line of Kearley and Tonge's warehouse.
If I'm correct then the square was a lot smaller in 1888.
The layout of the buildings and pavements were different then. Overall there is a bigger paved area today and the entrances to Mitre Street and Duke's Place (then Duke Street) are wider.
For more information on the layout of Mitre Square, check out the Explore JTR / Maps section of the Casebook Productions website, or study the illustrations in the books of Messrs. Farson and Begg.
Regards, V. |
Author: Graham Jay
Friday, 16 August 2002 - 09:47 am | |
| Would I be correct in assuming that the area that is now car park was built up to a point level with Mitre passage, where the cobbles start now? |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 16 August 2002 - 02:35 pm | |
Not sure what you mean, Graham. Blasted cars park all round the square, especially at school run time. You can probably answer your own question by checking through the sources listed above.
Regards, V. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 16 August 2002 - 06:05 pm | |
Hello Monty.
The surveyor's 1888 plan view (with relevant dimensions) of Mitre Square is contained within The Uncensored Facts as well as, I seem to recall, The Complete Jack the Ripper. The line of the warehouse wall and width of Church Passage are clearly defined.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 06:03 am | |
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to thank you all for your contributions here (esp Viper..how do you do it ? ...and Graham, for putting in the leg work).
Im off for the weekend but when I get back I shall study them all.
Many thanks,
Monty
|
Author: Graham Jay
Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 01:12 pm | |
| I don't think that either of the lines can mark the warehouse, since they cut through the paving slabs around them suggesting that all of the paving is a later addition. Having looked again, I'm still sure that the lines merely show where some sub-street work has been done |
Author: Monty
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 12:10 pm | |
Graham,
I'll tell what triggered this question.
I wanted to know where, roughly, Harvey would have stood if he did indeed wander down that passage. So I dug out the surveyors map in the PRO pack. Then I went to the square and stood where I supposed he stood. As I looked, I notice the paving and it fell in line with, what I think, is the outer wall.
Then I noticed Chris Jd's photo of the Mitre sq end of the passage and on the left of the photo is a door (on the angle, that make sense ? sorry if it doesnt) and this door is on the same angle as the paving is today.
I was just trying to get a feel of the size of the square in 1888.
I guess Im going mad,
Thanks again,
Monty
|
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 08:19 am | |
Hello again,
I know this is another pointless question by Monty but appease me...Im bored.
We all know about the street lighting situation within the square.
We have a rough idea about what the Bulls eye lamps were like thanks to Mr Evans experiment.
What I want to know is about the light that may/may not have been emitted from the buildings themselves...you know, the warehouses and home surrounding the square.
Would they have emitted enough light for our man ?
This question really originates from Mr Wroes views about the 'nicking' of Kates eyelids.
Any points ??
Monty
|
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 03:59 pm | |
Monty -
I am quoting from memory here, which is always a bad thing, but as I recall, the only light coming from any building within the square would have been from the door of Kearley and Tonge's warehouse, where the watchman Morris was sweeping the floor. I am unfamiliar with the procedures inherent in being a watchman, but presume Morris didn't turn the lights on all over the place, but merely took a lantern as he made his rounds.
Racking my brains over what I recall from the Telegraph and Star, I do not recall any reference to other people being awake (and hence having lights). All that sticks in my mind is Dr Sequeira's knotty comment at the inquest about there being 'sufficient light' for the Ripper to work. The problem is, no-one seems to have asked the good doctor what he meant by that statement. Some people use it as buttressing for theories about the streetlights; Bob Hinton wrote that he believed the PCs crowded around Eddowes' body misled Sequeira with their lanterns into thinking the Square was brighter than it was.
But as usual, no doubt my excellent colleague V will be able to put me firmly in my place.
CMD |
Author: cue
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 06:01 pm | |
Hi
Maybe there was a moon,it would provide shadow
and light?
thanks cue |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 06:05 pm | |
Hi, Cue
The sky was overcast that night in Mitre Square. I believe cloud cover was particularly heavy, according to a weather chart they had at the Casebook Productions site.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: cue
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 06:10 pm | |
Thanks Dave
cue |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 06:17 pm | |
I wondered the same thing myself, cue--it just goes to show you can't depend on anything in this case, not even the moon
Dave |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 18 September 2002 - 08:46 am | |
CMD,
Thanks for the input.
Ive always taken Sequeira's comments to be an obvious assumption on his behalf to what he may have taken as a daft question. A question that was either put to him or what everyone else was thinking (including himself).
A sort of 'well there must have been sufficient light else the murderer would have done what he had done, would he ?'.
If this is the case then I would have to agree with him. At the end of the day Jack must have had enough light else we wouldnt be here talking about it.
But what has always grated with me is the graffito. If the light was good and he had the time (Brown feels the murderer wasnt pushed for time) why 'nick' Kates eyelids when leaving the graffito above the body would have been far more impressive.
Doesnt the case just grab ya ?
Monty
|
Author: cue
Wednesday, 18 September 2002 - 05:19 pm | |
Hi Monty,
He already wrote the message, he just had to get back that way. it wouldn't matter how long it took him to find a victim, the message would be there.if it was wiped off so what try again next time.
thanks cue |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 18 September 2002 - 10:39 pm | |
| Hi Monty, I can see one good reason for the killer leaving the graffito at Goulston St instead of near the body.He wanted the police to believe that after killing Eddowes he went in the direction of his home leaving the message on the way. In short he left a false trail. When involved with crime in company with others we used to do the same in principle by leaving certain items miles in the opposite direction from where we ended up. The police would be looking in the wrong area for us and suffice to add that I will not go into greater detail for obvious reasons.Somtimes we would drive 20-30 miles or more out of our way to achieve this objective and it always worked. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 12:19 pm | |
Cue,
So he goes backwards and forwards all night ??
Not very efficient. Wheres the logic in that ??
Ivor,
Now your talking. Thats something I could believe. But, again, why leave the graffito in Goulston St ? Surely the dumping of the apron on its own is enough to lead the rossers in that direction.
Monty
|
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 06:40 pm | |
Dear Monty,
Why draw attention to a house door-way in Goulston St? (Sleep on it.)
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 08:55 pm | |
Hi Monty,
Mitre Square was a site where time was very tight so why waste precious time writing a message on the wall there? I wrote the message on a wall at my normal speed to find out how long it would take and it took me 33 seconds.Why waste 33 seconds on such a tight job schedule when you can save 33 seconds and remember time and cover were of the essence to this killer.As far as I am concerned the less time spent on any crime scene the better.The greatest danger Jack the Ripper faced was being caught on the job and he was more than aware of this fact. If in the killer's shoes I would write the message in the area that I planned to dump the apron piece for my false trail.No way would I spend 33 seconds writing the message on a wall in a street where I can be seen doing so. I would pick a doorway in which I could stand out of full view from the street while writing the message on the door jamb.The doorway would have to be deep enough to take the message so it could be seen along with the apron piece by a passing beat PC in the street or a member of the public.The doorway would have to be in the direction which I intended the police to believe I had fled on my way home. The doorway which fitted all these requirements was one of several in Goulston Street and it led to about a dozen premises.You are correct about the apron piece being enough to lead the police in that direction but Jack thought about leaving the writing to mislead the police because he was playing a mind game with them. The message was not intended to lead police to him but away from him and to waste their time in the process.While they thought about crap like that their minds were not focused in the right direction.For example look at how much time the graffito has occupied the mind's of Ripperologists over the years. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 12:10 am | |
Ivor,
I appreciate the amount of circumspection you have put into the above theory, but come on now. The whole thing is purely speculative. You can't assume what was in Jack the Ripper's mind at any point. All you can do is make reasonable inferences based on the evidence. There is no evidence that leads to what you say above--it is just your speculation.
Esoteratis, esoterandis.
In other words, as soon as you get esoteric, you have to get more esoteric.
Highest personal regards,
David |
Author: Monty
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 11:37 am | |
Ivor,
Firstly I take your point...........but,
I cannot see the gaffito coming into it. Its a piece of meanlingless nonsense. We, despite revelations to the contrary, have NOT come to a satisfactory translation of it....even after 114 years of working it out. We agree as much.
I see Jack as an efficient murderer, that is plain.
Coming and going is far from efficient. Its too risky.
Leaving a message at the murder site would have been just as much a time waster as leaving it at Goulston st but leaving it a Mitre sq would have had more of an impact than at Goulston st.
As for the time, he had enough time to leave a more simpler message. Out of curiosity, you know me Ivor babes, Im not stirring, just enquiring, did you try a different message. A shorter version ?
But this is all academic,
Monty
|
Author: Stephen Hills
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 08:03 pm | |
Hi Monty and Ivor
If you are looking for a motive for leaving the grafitti, try Timsta’s post, on Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 11:10 pm on the Goulston Street thread. It sounds very plausible.
Cromo |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 04:15 pm | |
Hi David,
Of course my comments are speculative in relation to the matter at hand in fact so are everyone elses for that matter.Take out all the speculative comments in relation to this case and you would be left with very little indeed. Also I simply placed myself in the killer's shoes and thought about what I would have done under the circumstances. Do not let me catch you speculating about this case or I will be on you like a ton of bricks!!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 04:39 pm | |
Hi Monty,and Stephen.
Spent a day trying to put a couple of posts on here Monty!!!!wrote a very long reply which never went on here so this will be a shorter post. Maybe the message he left was the simplest message he could leave for the purpose. Have you read Jeff Bloomfield's article titled, "On the Danger of Writing Graffito too Cleverly," it makes very interesting reading and mentions where the killer got the idea to write the Graffito and I quite agree with it.I have often thought it possible that the message was incorrectly copied down hence all the confusion as to what the message actually meant.The police in fact had several versions of it in 1888. The only good explanation which I have ever heard to date in relation to the graffito was by Stephenson in his letter to the Pall Mall Gazette. He also wrote a letter about the Graffito to the police.In this letter he explains that the message was not copied down correctly by the constable and he went on to explain what the message actually did state.By the way leaving a message at Goulston Street was a great deal safer than leaving it at Mitre Square on the wall near the body.
Stephen, Many thanks for that information will check it out. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 09:27 pm | |
Ivor,
I've found that not to be the case. Attempting to create a determinative, instead of a speculative Ripperology, I found a real cornucopia in the evidence--an ever-expanding Center, a delight in the cold sunshine.
I don't mean to criticise you, Ivor, I only mean to have a critical Ripperology.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 07:07 am | |
David Radka,
A passion waiting for an echo?
Your subtil serpent,
Rosey:-) |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 08:07 pm | |
Rosemary,
Solving the case will make me a billionaire.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 08:55 pm | |
Dear David,
...and your solution will bring the total solutions scheduled to be published in 2003 to four and a half! Tick, tick, tick, tick...
Rosey :-) |
Author: Monty
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 08:48 am | |
Ivor,
I have not read it. I shall see if I can.
Thank you.
Monty
|
