|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
WAS THERE A MISJUDGEMENT ?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
WAS THERE A MISJUDGEMENT ?
Author: richard nunweek
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 10:34 am |        | HI EVERYONE.
what has always puzzled me regarding the eddowes murder was the slap dash by the police to allow catherine eddowes to leave the cells at 1am ,and venture out in the dangerous streets without police escort , this was surely against the policy at the height of these crimes. i appreciate that it would be humane of the police to release people who had sobered up rather then pay a fine the next day which they could not afford , however with a maniac on the loose this is surely unexceptable.
the question therefore i will ask is was eddowes used as a decoy either willingly or unaware and she was followed on leaving the station by a plain clothes policeman who was observing her route the fact that she turned left outside the station the wrong way home suggests she may have allowed herself to be followed. BUT could things have gone slightly wrong in that the officer let eddowes get to far ahead and he lost sight of her mayby he saw her being accosted by a man and stepped back a bit so that he would not alarm the suspect. mayby when eddowes and her killer stopped at church passage she became unsighted that would explain a man stopping to ask the nightwatchman james bleinkensop ; have you seen a man and a woman pass this way ?. did he make a terrible mistake ?. the press were not informed about circumstances after this murder infact the police put up a wall of silience, questions must be raised here . why was bleinkensop not called as a witness. was the officer that may have followed eddowes the person at the seaside home i would have thought he would have eddowes death on his concious and may well have had a breakdown.the remark made in later years that no one ever saw the whitechapel murderer unless it was the city police officer on duty at mitre square is proberly near the truth . i know this sounds a bit cloak and dagger but it is entirely possible that things went wrong that night taking everything into consideration regards richard. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 11:47 am | | All very good points, Richard.
As an ex police officer I can tell you that we used to give our prisoners a lift home, wherever possible, when releasing them.
Maybe Stewart Evans would be better placed to comment on this than I, but I suppose that once someone has sobered up (after being arrested for being drunk in a public place) then that person has to be released whatever the time of day.
I don't expect Eddowes was used as a decoy, but it's a shame that a few of the 1888 London coppers didn't think the same way that you do, i.e. why release an unaccompanied woman back onto the streets on one of Jacky's work nights?
Peter |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:05 pm | | I agree that Eddowes should have been escorted home. Constable Hutt probably had that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
Having said that Eddowes was probably intent on soliciting to earn enough for a bed and it's possible she would not welcome, or would even try to elude a police escort. She was also economical with the truth about her name and address. This would be another reason to avoid police involvement.
I also believe that there would be an easier way to provide a decoy than to put a woman, however poor into direct danger.
Maybe we should also consider the 'It'll never happen to me.' syndrome. Her reply to Hutt as she left was far from that of a woman who is scared to go out alone.
Whatever you believe, he should certainly have ensured that she was protected and in this case it would have been a kindness to keep her in the cells all night. If she had been thinking she would have realised that she would not need to solicit as she could get a bed for nothing in the cells. |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 06:28 pm | | Hi Richard
Some very interesting points re Eddowes' release. However I think we have to bear in mind the following in mind:
1) In the Whitechapel of the time (especially on weekend evenings) I would have thought that arrests for drunkeness were very common and I wonder if it would have been practicable for every one released to be given a police escort
2) Police resources at the time would have been, ironically, very stretched with officers on special assignment within Whitechapel and Spitalfields. We can only assume that this left fewer officers available for more mundane duties.
3) The only comment I know of suggesting a police sighting is the reference in Macnaghten's notes about a City PC. This has been much discussed and I dont want to resurrect all that here but we must bear in mind that the Macnaghten notes were compiled 6 years after the events and, on his own admission, from memory.
I am not sure but I think Bishopsgate Police stsion where Eddowes was taken came under the Met Police and not the City. I'm sure someone will correct me if Im wrong
Thanks for the interesting post
Chris S |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 05:23 am | | I think some people are thinking that the police should have known somehow, through psychic powers perhaps, that Eddowes was at risk. What possible reason would there be to treat her any differently from all the other women in the area and give her individual police protection?
Similarly, using her as a decoy would also require some foreknowledge that she was going to be the next victim. There's no evidence that victims were chosen in any method other than random selection, so how on earth could they have thought she'd make a good decoy?
Dan
P.S. richard -- could you please reconsider your habit of starting new threads and giving them names in all caps?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 09:33 am | | hello all,
i agree that police resources were stretched but that is still no excuse to allow a woman of eddowes somewhat dubious character to leave the station at 1am. it is of course quite posible that she was allowed to leave unescorted and that she was not followed ,yet she may have been seen talking to a man a little way from the police station by a plain clothes officer on duty who may or may not have belonged to the city police,and as it was police procedure to observe every man and woman together after midnight, he may well have simply been doing his duty. with reference to macnaughtons memory and a six year gap in refering to the city constable i doubt if he was that much of a scatterbrain being in the position that he was . i have a resonable memory , i dont remember everything but points of major significance i certainly do.
if there was a mystery policeman and he was in the position to follow eddowes and had indeed lost her and mayby her killer to be ,he would i guess feel rather distraught along with the desk officer at bishopsgate police station. if this pc did identify the person with eddowes that night at the seaside home i think it would be out of the question,that they would take this man to a court of law and have the police officer tell the truth on how he came to identify the suspect on the night of 30th sept. that would discredit the police that would be completly unexceptable, far better to confine this lunatic to an institution for the insane and sweep this unfortunate episode under the carpet therefore someone like kosminski or david cohen would be a likely candidate. what i have always liked to do regarding this subject is to get as much evidence , fact or circumstantial,and even oral history , and hearsay , and try to finalize a possible scenerio using my somewhat vivid imagination which i have been told i have in abundance to make sense of this incredible series of murders . regards richard |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 12:10 pm | | Hi Richard,
Well there are several factors that we are all forgetting.
1.) It wasn't known at the time of Eddowes arrest that she was a Prostitute. She was arrested for being drunk and disorderly early in the evening.(At a time when even 'fine and upstanding' young women were out and about.) Since Jack only attacked women who were prostitutes, and Eddowes wasn't soliciting at the time of her arrest, the police could have felt no fear that she would be attacked.
2.) Eddowes was FAR from the scene of any of the other Ripper Murders. Meaning they may have felt that a woman in that area would be safe.(After all, we're close to City Territory here.)
3.) The Police Dragnet. There were Police EVERYWHERE that night. So they could have easily believed that Eddowes would have been safe, with a 'Cop on every block'.(Obviously they were mistaken.)
4.) The possibility that the City P.C. may be P.C. William Smith. Yes, Smith was actually a Metropolitan Officer. And yes, Smith was in the area of Berner St., NOT Mitre Square. However, he was a Police Officer that had a 'Good Look' at a man who was with one of the Victims(Stride) not long before her death. And this same victim was killed on the SAME night as the murder in Mitre Square. And we do know by MANY official documents of Police from the City being brought into Whitechapel to help find the Murderer. So it could be a simple confusion as to Smith's identity and where and with whom he witnessed this possible suspect.(We've seen many of the same mistakes made during, and the later recollections of, the case.)
5.) Lastly, the possibility that the Man seen by Bleckingsop, who asking about the 'Man and woman', could have been anyone on the street looking for his lost compatriots. After all, we have several people on the streets in the surrounding areas of Mitre Square at the time.(I.E. Lawende and his friends coming out of that club on Duke St.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 12:51 pm | | hi chris.
lets see if we can agree ,and disagree on those 5 points you raised.it is true that eddowes was not known as a regular whitechapel prostitute. although she did do so on occassions. her appearence and attitude would certainly however give someone like jack that impression. i disagree that the police would not think that she could be a target any woman alone regardless of class could be a target in the early hours of the morning.although we must not lose sight of the fact that when eddowes was released there had only been two or possibly three counting tabram been murdered to date. and they may have been complacent. referring to the police believing she was far from the other murders i would not have thought they had formed an opinion where the killer would proberly strike next. as when eddowes was released they were unaware of strides murder. as for the police being everywhere that night, as i just stated they were not aware of the latest murder om eddowes release.as for p.c.william smith he was indeed on duty around berner street that night . but it clearly states in macnaughten memoranda ;this man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the city p.c near mitre square so he clearly was refering to another officer. and finally refering to james blenkinsop of course the man who asked him had he seen a man and a woman go through here could have been anybody ,yet this was at 130am the same time that eddowes and jack were standing in church passage if this was a coincedence,it would have to be added to the hundreds of others that appear to be accepted by many people on these boards .regards richard |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 04:33 pm | | Hi Richard,
Actually by many documents that were sliding through police hands, they were of a general consensus that ONLY Prostitutes were being targeted by the Ripper. Even the papers stated this time and time again.(Sometimes even quoting Police Officials.) So to me it would be MORE than likely that the Police wouldn't be too fearful of Eddowes being attacked if they believed that she was just a simple drunk and not Prostitute.(Especially, when we tag on the fact of the distance from the other murder scenes as well as the hundreds of P.C.'s that filled the streets, at least on those streets they believed the killer would attempt to strike next.) Plus, I remember MANY debates we've had here on the boards in the past when it came to Eddowes being a Street Walker or not. And we have MUCH more evidence in our possession than those officers guarding a sobering woman in a cell on Bishopsgate.
And up until Annie Chapman's death it was considered that perhaps the murders of Tabram and Nichols may have just been the work of one of the local Whitechapel Gangs.(Particularly the Nichols Gang, which worked those areas.) Now of course after Chapman that theory had been blown into the wind, however, these murders still took place FAR from Bishopsgate, in back alleyways and not so travelled streets. And if Eddowes(or Mary Ann Kelly as the police had known her) had taken a sensible route home(to Fashion St. where she stated she lived), it would be through fairly well populated streets, so she should have been in no danger.(Unfortunately Eddowes had lied about her lodgings, as well as didn't go directly home.)
Plus we see through various Inquest statements, and even some of the official documents that MAJOR Police presence was confined to certain areas in the Eastern and North Eastern parts of Whitechapel.(I.E. They would have three or four P.C.'s routes run over one another to make sure that these particular areas were 'well watched'.) Including searches of areas where 'the Ripper must certainly reside'.(Meaning they believed that the Ripper stayed to certain areas. Unfortunately for the police, when he killed each successive victim the area began to widen.)
I know Macnaughten said a City P.C., but Macnaughten also states that Druitt, the suspect he has 'private information' about, was a Doctor. Obviously he was wrong in this fact. What I was stating is that it could be quite possible that Macnaughten may have made a mistake as to who this P.C. was, and where he witnessed this suspect.(After all, no one has ever recovered any information about this 'mysterious' P.C., nor any description of the suspect this P.C. supposedly saw. So perhaps the P.C. was just an 'Error of Memory', and in fact was P.C. Smith on Berner Street instead of the City P.C. outside Mitre Square. Macnaughten had a few of those in his Memorandum, as did many of the other Officials when they looked back over the case years after it had been closed.)
I agree with you that there are MANY coincidences and strange occurances with this case. However, let's look over what Bleckinsop stated. When asked by the respectably dressed man about if a 'man and woman had passed through here', he states he had seen some people passing through, but didn't pay any attention to them. Meaning it wasn't odd to see people pass through the area at that time of night.(And we already know that there are still clubs and shops open in the area, by Lawende, Harris, and Levy just leaving the Imperial Club at the time. As well as many other stories reported in the Papers.(One in particular comes to mind, regarding a club near Aldgate where one gentleman reported seeing a suspicious man with a 'black bag' asking if there were any women in the area. And who was later seen propositioning a lady outside the club not too prior to Eddowes' release.) So it could be nothing more than just a simple coincidence.
Plus let's not forget that there was a big robbery of a Postal Office in Aldgate that occurs on the same night as the Double Event. Which was not more than a block from two P.C.'s beats no less. So September 30th, wasn't exactly a GREAT night for the Police's P.R.
But say you are correct that this man was a plain clothes detective. Why is it we never have any statements from him, or even any references to them, in the official documents?(Not to mention why don't we have any interoffice documentation of this 'Mysterious' City P.C. who saw Jack the Ripper in Mitre Square.) If it was just some guy on the street who thought he saw Jack the Ripper, why didn't he come forward to try and collect on the reward?
Now if this was just a guy looking for a couple of friends, I'd understand his not coming forward. But if he wasn't just a guy looking for his compatriots, and he wasn't Jack the Ripper, then why didn't he step forward, especially when such a substantial reward was offered? Or if he was an Police Officer then why didn't he at least report what he saw to his superiors?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: chris scott
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 05:40 pm | | Hi all
I think another factor we have to bear in mind is how different social customs were in 1880s and especially so in that area of London. Most police forces today (certainly UK and, preumably US) would be very aware of releasing a woman alone at one in the morning into one of the most disreputable areas of the capital.
However, what amazes me as you read witness statements, newspaper reports is how much these people were up and about at all hours of the day and night. If you read the witness statements for the Kelly inquest for example, I think to myself "When did these people ever sleep?!!!"
For example, Mary Ann Cox on her own testimony on the night of Kelly's murder, came home to Millers Court at 11.45pm, went out again shortly after 12 midnight, returned at 1 am, went out again shortly after 1am and returned at 3am. As she described herself as a "widow and an unfortunate" it does not require too much imagination to work out what all these comings and goings were for but her testimony is by no means unique and I know of no testimony of this sort that ever elicited surprise or raised the question : "what was a woman doing out alone in such an area at such a time?"
Regards
Chris S |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 08:29 pm | | Whenever I have indulged in too much alcohol, I usually end up sleeping it off and waking up mighty thirsty. I submit for consideration that Catherine Eddowes headed for Mitre Square in search of a sink. I believe it was Stewart Evans that said the sink was still there in the 60's or 70's....can't remember who it was for sure.
Would there have been another sink somewhere closer around there that would blow gunk on this little theory? Would the police have given Catherine Eddowes water to drink before releasing her? |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 07:04 am | | hi chris.
the only thing i can add and i do not mean to repeat myself ,is if eddowes was followed by a plain clothes police officer, either from the station or en route and that p.c lost her at mitre square . any statement made to this effect to his superiors in view of the tragic circumstances woild surely not be made public ,and any records confirming the event would have been distroyed . with the police force coming under fire from all quarters during this period the last thing the establishment would have wanted was this tragic error to be made known. one final point i would have thought the p.c in question would if positively identifying the suspect at the seaside home, would have been forced to give evidence in a court of law , the excuse that he refused to give evidence against one of his own kind would have been unexceptable. i would state that the decision would have been made for him . the police would have loved to make an arrest and name the killer in normal circumstances , but the police force would be discredited out of all proportion if the full circumstances were released to the media. they would have decided that to remove this person from society would be sufficent and place him in a home for the insane would end the matter, also if this person was a jew even more reason for dealing with it in this way .anti jewish propaganda would be frowned upon. regards richard. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 07:31 am | | Hi Brenda,
I never thought about Eddowes needing some water to relieve her 'cotton mouth' before. It is interesting and would explain why she didn't at least attempt to go back towards the lodging house Kelly was staying at. I always thought that perhaps she thought of trying to make a 'quick buck' so she wouldn't have to spend the night on the streets again, or maybe even attempted to get into a local workhouse.
Hi Richard,
I'm sorry, but I don't by the police destroying evidence. We've seen PLENTY of blunders going on that the Police reported.(Sir Charles wiping off the Graffiti, the burglarly at the Postal Office near where there had been some police stationed, the large sum of money given to the Foreign Gentleman who professed that he could identify the Ripper as a former member of a Secret Society, Tumblety's escape, etc.) The idea that this one mistake wouldn't be reported, which in turn makes it so that the P.C. could NEVER be used to identify the suspect in a court of law, would be MORE damaging than by actually keeping a report of it.
And the idea of the P.C. being a fanatical Jew that wouldn't turn in his fellow Hebrew is just beyond silly in my mind.(Then again I don't believe that Anderson/Swanson were correct in their assumption that the 'witness' wouldn't identify the suspect because of said suspects ethnicity.)
I'm sorry, but it's MUCH MORE plausible that Macnaughton made a mistake. That it wasn't a City P.C. that saw the Ripper near Mitre Square, but rather a 'Yard Man' who saw a suspect in Berner St.(After all notice how the officials never mention P.C. Smith's description.)
But I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:32 am | | Chris:
I don't think Eddowes would have needed to go as far as Mitre Square in order to use one of the fine artifacts of the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association.
I seem to remember trying to find a map of these but failing. I do however have a contact address for them:
The Drinking Fountain Association
Hoppingwood Farm
Robin Hood Way
London SW20 0AB
Regards
Timsta |
|
|
|
|
