Archive through October 12, 2000

** 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 October 12, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Simplicity - Occams Razor: Archive through October 12, 2000

Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 06 October 2000 - 07:24 pm
No Keith, youve got me wrong. I said the Ripper suffocated Annie into unconsciousness whilst both were in a standing position, he then lowered her body to the ground and cut her throat as she lay in a prone position. Because she was unconscious and not dead the heart would still be pumping, the blood would spurt and some of it splashed the fence fourteen inches high.As you must know Keith, and Jon mentioned the saying, it's not for me to teach grannie to suck eggs,--blood from a living throat don't fall -- it flies. As regards the method of subduing and throat cutting, Jon it's nice to see we agree to the letter on something--great! Regards to both, Rick.
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 07:41 pm
Great Rick..... But are you agreeing with me.....or am I agreeing with you? :-) Keith You mentioned a larger animal like a cariboo being wounded and obviously not dead. Then you cut the throat and the blood runs away, does not spray. But, you have just said it was wounded, thereby relieving the pressure in the arteries, so of course it will not spray. Try hitting one over the head :-) Then cut its throat,..it'll spray. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 08:06 pm
Unfortunately I missed NickDanger's post of yesterday about Strangulation vs Asphyxiation. Very definitely I agree with him, we were both involved in a similar (or the same) discussion of the merits of either possibility. At one time I was of the opinion that using the sleeper hold from behind was how Jack subdued his victims, as there was never any evidence of finger marks on the throat. But they may have been obscured by the cuts. Apparently Garrotting was a craze in London in the 1860's, though an implement was known to be used, like a strap around the throat. Fashion publications of the time proposed cages over the head, that could be worn, that rested on your shoulders, which was the latest hi-tec method of defending ones self from being Garrotted. However, strangulation cuts off air to the lungs and often kills reasonably quick. Asphyxiation cuts off blood (oxygen) to the brain so the victim is left unconscious. It's a matter of how did Jack grasp their throat? Regards, Jon (Good reminder, Nick)
Author: Feebles Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:51 pm
There is a discussion of throat-cutting on a page devoted to the OJ Simpson case, and it has some relevant points issues discussed here since the murder was also a surprise attack culminating in a deeply cut throat and the issues of blood spray, position and unconsciousness of the victim were raised. Click here to read it For those who prefer a slaughterhouse worker as suspect, I would also point out that they are trained to stun the animal before cutting its throat. But animals slaughtered in a religious ritual are not stunned, their throats are just cut. That leaves out the shochets, in case anyone is still on the trail!
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:50 am
Jon, I have to go along with you on the fact that it doesn't make much if any sense to kneel, crouch or stand bent double between light and what you are doing. But was there enough light coming from that direction to make any difference?.He obviously cut Kate's throat while his back was to the square because he cut from left to right of the body. This was a lightning fast killing, and complicated,--the eyes,nose, uterus and kidney, and as has been noted, he left part of the uterus in the body, cut into the bowel intestine and made a dirty stinking mess of the body, and himself most likely. Is it likely he would have added to his inconveniences by working from the wrong side. I've tried putting myself in that position and it's blummin awkward to say the least.I don't have much faith in this compromise but I'll say it anyway--could he have positioned himself between her head and her left shoulder, and worked kind of upside down, a kind of a 69 position? (if I can say that). If P.C.Harvey was standing under light looking into dark I don't think he could have seen that far anyway, the Ripper would have heard him coming down the passage, could have been staring at Harvey, but Harvey wouldnt have known. I think it was 1972 I first saw Mitre Square and other JtR sites, didn't notice the gate and passage in JtR's Corner, it's never commented on as an escape route--where did it go?. Jon, who cares who agrees with who? we're back on speaking terms, let's keep it that way, life is too short to fall out, even on paper. My Regards Rick.
Author: Jon Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:57 am
Rick Last point first.... Dont ever think that these discussions will lead to 'falling out'....never, I will never fall out with anybody over a difference of opinion. Keith & I have had some difficult exchanges too, but I would never dream of intentionaly upsetting anyone, and I never get upset either. Regardless of what is said, none of us really know the truth. But I hope we all have fun in pushing our points across. Sometimes I may be too sharp, too direct but thats mainly because I'm not a conversationalist, I prefer to come straight to the point. And some people may feel 'attacked' by this, but this is never my intent, not at all. (I hope Leanne understands too) :-) While I was responding to your previous poste on the subject of the killers position, I was thinking that even though it makes perfect sense to me that a killer would not work with his back to the square, I also realize that in the heat of the moment, what we may think as logical is not always how things happened. I tend to think also, (contra Keith) that Jack was not too exact in removing Eddowes organs, mainly due to haste & the fact it was dark. But, a common argument against this is that "if he had time to make patterns on her face then he was in no great hurry". Which may be true, but that assumes he made those patterns AFTER he removed her organs. I wonder if he made them BEFORE he removed her organs, then he heard footsteps and was suddenly pushed for time. I think your right about Harvey, I have posed the same point myself, that if he stood at the bottom of Church Passage under the lamp he may have been blind to what was happening across the square. So, Jack could have been crouched over Eddowes while he watched Harvey standing under that lamp,.....sort of eerie thought, dont you think? But, for this to be true, we would have to postulate that Jack KNEW Harvey would not step into the square. And personally, I dont think its reasonable to postulate that Jack knew the times of the policeman on their beats. Best Regards, Jon
Author: Keith Rogan Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 11:17 am
Warwick, I don't necessarily buy the "blood spraying on the fence" reasoning, but see no reason to disagree with your premise. The blood was just a few drops and so you don't need a geyser of blood to explain it. A simple swing of the knife (of which there were likely many) would explain it. Keith
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 04:45 pm
Keith, I can only say what Bagster Phillips said in his report for the inquest on Annie . It reads, "the bloodstains on the fence (which included one described in the press as a very strong splash, as if from arterial bleeding ) were beside her head and neck, suggesting her throat was cut as she lay on the ground. Thats all I can tell you. Keith, I have a question, nothing to do with JtR but you are the ideal man to tell me. The grizzly bear, apart from the polar bear, is the largest bear in North America and Canada so we are led to believe. But I've read somewhere that the kodiak bear is bigger. Now, can you tell me, is a kodiak an oversized grizzly, or a species of bear in it's own right? Regards Rick.
Author: Keith Rogan Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 06:02 pm
The Kodiak Bear and the Grizzly are both classified as "Ursus Arctos" - the same species. They used to split Kodiaks into a separate family known as Ursus Middendorfi (sp?) but modern DNA testing shows that they really are the same species and identical in every respect except for size. If you go by weight then the Kodiak Bear is the largest land carnivore. If you measure length and height, the the rangier Polar Bear gets the nod I have a web site devoted to bears at: www.bearbite.com You can see very nice color pictures of me covered in blood and grinning in shock after being mauled a couple of years ago. Keith
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:06 pm
Keith, your prompt!. info very interesting. Thank you very much Rick.
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 01:28 pm
Keith, I've looked at your Bearbite site and very interesting and enlightening it is. That attack must have been terrifying, and I hope you don't suffer any lasting effects from it. It was a sad affair all round, but you have my admiration, nice to see who I'm talking to. How the heck did you get hooked on JtR living on Kodiak Island? Best Regards, and take care in future. Rick. PS I've got to say it, with that hat and that mustache---JtR---to a "T" J
Author: Keith Rogan Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 03:17 pm
Warwick, Other than some missing ass, no lasting effects from the bear. I used to travel quite a bit and one time in London, oh,...15 years ago, I took one of those JtR tours. Kind of silly really, but they did go to the sites of the killings and it was enough to wet my appetite. Now, with the Internet, I get the opportunity to examine it again at leisure. Keith
Author: Jill De Schrijver Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 05:12 pm
Jon, Fully agree too, on your response of the blood-on-the fence. Was actually thinking the same reaction after reading Keith's post to me, but you've done the job quite well :-), as my input is very low during the weekends. Greetings, Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 05:17 pm
Keith, - I've listed all the notes regarding hands, for the victims including Tabram and Stride, in a thread under general discussion -> Medical Roundtable: Forensics, Pathology &c. - Have to ponder on your last suggestion. Jim, Your observations on the point of where the victims were attacked, are great. Greetings, Jill
Author: Keith Rogan Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 08:36 pm
Jill and Warwick, The surgeon makes note of the blood on the fence (18" rather than 14" as we've been talking about), but there's no suggestion by him that he thinks the blood "spurted" out on the fence. I think he is simply crediting the proximity of the blood on the fence as evidence that the killing took place there. Read the testimony: "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly FLOWED from the neck, which was well clotted." I don't think this is an important point, but there is no suggestion here that the surgeon thinks the blood spurted directly from the neck. Rather, I think he is merely drawing attention to the proximity of the wall and fence as evidence that the throat was cut there. The blood on the fence is actually smeared from contact. The blood on the wall is a few drops, as if the knife swung that way and tossed a little blood. Keith
Author: Jon Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 09:22 pm
The blood stains on the wall between the steps & the fence were then prettywell over her head. And one cause for such spots may have been the fact that Jack threw her intestines over her shoulder, splashing dots on the house wall?.
Author: Jon Monday, 09 October 2000 - 10:57 am
Upload trouble.......gimme a sec.
Author: Jon Monday, 09 October 2000 - 11:22 am
Rick In your poste of Oct 7, 10:50pm you raised a question of some detail in Mitre Square. Does this pic answer your question? Courtesy of Paul Begg "JtR, the Uncensored facts" I was there in '72 & the large gate in the corner was still there then. Regards, Jon
Author: David M. Radka Monday, 09 October 2000 - 12:25 pm
Thank you for posting the full diagram, Jon. It's a good idea for everyone interested in the case to revisit this document occasionally, to be able to work through their recent work on the case schematically. I was struck by the following whilst reviewing the document anew this time: The murderer placed Eddowes' body the way he placed it because he wanted to keep watch over Church Street passage. He'd be squatting between Eddowes' legs for his mutilation work, and would only need to turn his head periodically slightly to the left to see up the passage. He must have thought that the carriageway was his best escape route if disturbed in this manner, and must have thought it more likely that any disturbace would come from the Church Street passage. It is reasonable to believe, since he must have known the beats of the PCs, that he considered his greatest risk to have been from the PC who periodically walked down the passage to peer into the Square, then walked back. From his mutilating position, he could periodically stand up and jog the few steps back toward the carriageway to peer around the corner, giving him an architecturally commanding view of anyone coming with little exposure of himself. If he saw a PC approaching, he could light out toward either St. James Place or the Church Street passage before the intruder saw the body and realized what was happening. The murderer apparently kissed off the chance of an intruder approaching from out of the Orange Market, since he had no means to sight the approach of such a person from where he was mutilating before that person might also sight him and the body (given an approach to some extent across the Square from the Orange Market, due to darkness.) Again the carriageway would be his escape from such an intruder. Probably it is no mistake that the PCs covering Mitre Square entered from Church Street Passage and the carraigeway, neither from the Orange Market. He knew what he was doing. If this analysis is on target, it also implies that he left Mitre Square though the Orange Market, since this would be his perceived safest route. I.e., he did the least to protect himself while mutilating from the Orange Market. Plus, the Orange Market is the shortest route toward Ghoulston street. David
Author: Scott Nelson Monday, 09 October 2000 - 12:49 pm
Can anyone confirm if there was a narrow passage from about the middle of Church Passage going north to the Great Synagogue (behind or east of the adjoining Kearley & Tonge Warehouse)?
Author: Jon Monday, 09 October 2000 - 01:30 pm
Scott The passage to which you refer is clear on the 1894 Ordinance map but is not present on the previous 1873 version. The Synagogue was facing onto Duke St. and the K & T warehouse fronted into the square. The passage ran north between both buildings. Viper may have some more relevent info. Regards, Jon
Author: Chandler Monday, 09 October 2000 - 01:38 pm
Hi Scott, I believe SPE posted a photo looking down Church Passage recently somewhere on the site but I can't be more specific than that. So it might at least show if there is a side outlet. regaurds, chandler
Author: Keith Rogan Monday, 09 October 2000 - 02:39 pm
Jon, "one cause for such spots may have been the fact that Jack threw her intestines over her shoulder, splashing dots on the house wall?" Excellent! I have no doubt you're right! Keith
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 09 October 2000 - 02:42 pm
Jon, I think you may have sent out a picture of JtR's Corner, my machine chooses not to show me yet, but it will come round eventualy. What I would like to know, if you can tell me is, where did that gate and passage lead,--could he have escaped that way?. It's never mentioned as an escape route, Rick.
Author: Jon Monday, 09 October 2000 - 03:20 pm
Rick The wide black gate was an entrance to a private yard at the rear of two houses. The first house at the Mitre Sq. carriage entrance was a shop (Mr Taylor), the 2nd was an empty house, at the rear of which Eddowes body lay. The Gate was attached to the join between the 2nd & 3rd house, the 3rd & 4th houses were also empty. At the rear of these (3rd & 4th) was a passage or yard, which the gate gave access to. The 5th house was much deeper than the first 4 houses, and a door from the side of the 5th house also opened into this yard. I do not know if the 5th house was occupied or not, all these houses fronted onto Mitre Street. City PC Richard Pearce lived at No3 Mitre St. And George Clapp lived at No5 Mitre St. Both stated that their premises overlooked the square at the rear. Viper may know how the houses were numbered, but the above picture indictes that the first 4 houses were empty, but this may only refer to the ground floor rooms. You think Jack may have hid in one of these empty houses?
Author: The Viper Monday, 09 October 2000 - 04:12 pm
Jon, Your comments about the relative positions of the Great Synagogue and the Kearley & Tonge warehouse (4:30 poste) are correct. Scott, The 1894 ordnance map does confirm that a passage ran behind the Great Synagogue, as Jon says. To be honest, I didn't really notice that feature on the 1887 Goad Plan when inspecting it. On the other side of Church Passage, (the right as you look at the plan above), there were a couple of interesting features too. There was a shed marked very close to where the lamp is situated and the passage narrows, and there was a yard immediately behind the property on the corner with Duke Street (numbered 40). Though this yard appeared to be fenced off from the alley, it did cross my mind that places such as it and the shed (if not locked) might offer possibilities to somebody seeking cover, especially if desparate. Jon, You query the numbering of Mitre Street in your next entry. The numbering was of the old-style consecutive up-and-down pattern, in this case running right to left from the junction with Aldgate. The property at the corner which is marked as Mr. Taylor's shop was no. 9. The three empty houses were therefore 8, 7 and 6 and the larger building you refer to was no. 5 - the warehouse where George Clapp was nightwatchman. Regards, V.
Author: Jon Monday, 09 October 2000 - 05:17 pm
Thankyou Viper How do you suppose PC Pearce could oversee the square from the rear of his premises, at No3? Also, seeing as we are talking of Mitre Square, I thought I'd throw in this little known shot looking up Church Passage from about the middle of the square, taken sometime prior to 1965. And this is how it was in '72. Courtesy, Robin Odell, JtR, in fact and fiction.
Author: The Viper Monday, 09 October 2000 - 05:51 pm
Jon, Excellent question re-PC Pearce - had never really thought about that one. The answer would depend on the relative height of his house compared with the warehouse at no. 5 and the property between them and I don't know that. It looks as if he'd have a partial view of the Square at best though. Would you agree that since the murder took place in the corner nearest to his house, there is little chance Pearce would have had the 'plunging' view required to see Eddowes and the murderer down there? With regard to the 1965 photograph: from my recollection of that Goad Plan (and unfortunately I don't have a copy of it), my suspicion is that the nearest building on the right was built post-1887. Perhaps somebody else out there knows for sure. Regards, V.
Author: Scott Nelson Monday, 09 October 2000 - 06:28 pm
Viper, Don't you mean that PC Pearce's view of the murder site may have been obscured by the adjacent Williams & Co. building (#4?), not the recessed warehouse building of Heydemann & Co.?
Author: The Viper Monday, 09 October 2000 - 06:53 pm
Nise one, Scott. Apologies to you and to everyone else who read my last drivel. Ignore it. (That's what comes of posting late at night and not double checking the facts). PC Pearce was at 3 Mitre Square and not at 3 Mitre Street. Therefore he should have had an uninterrupted view of events across the square had he happened to look out of his window. Regards, V.
Author: Scott Nelson Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 01:06 am
To Jon Smyth: Jon, a lot of your ideas on the Mitre Square murder run parallel with my own. I've been writing a short essay on it, which duplicates a lot of your excellent observations that I came up with independently. I only incorporated your idea of the Eddowes apron being cut to wrap up extracted organs in. The essay will come out shortly.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 11:38 am
Jon,I wanted to answer you last night but I had an error312 on screen, I could receive but not send. Anyway you answered my query about the gate and passage in the corner, and thank you. No I wasn't thinking of him hiding in one of the empty houses, I was thinking maybe he could find his way to a backstreet and on to Goulston from that corner, seems probably not. My own pet theory is Mitre St entrance was his escape route. Most people, men and women wore leather soles or heavy boots in that area in 88. He would have heard anyone approaching from St James or Church Passage for a little time before they came into view, and then he had the distance between himself and those two entrances.He and Kate had managed to get to the corner without alerting George Morris the caretaker at the tea warehouse, would he risk it again to exit the square?. He could hear if any one was approaching from Mitre St and he was right by the entrance.Possibly when P.C.Watkins became audible to him he knew he had to be away, and possibly he could have slipped out of the entrance before Watkins was near enough to spot him. He cut the apron to wipe his hands whilst on the move between the body and Aldgate HighSt, then hands in pockets, walking at a normal pace to Middlesex or Goulston St. It wouldn't be the first time a lawbreaker ran toward people to lose himself. Rick
Author: Jon Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 12:50 pm
Scott Thats one of the great things about this site, to be able to share & build on each others ideas. Scott & Rick Seeing as you both are commenting on something that we are all researching, in one way or another. I thought I might let you know of a dissertation I wrote some time ago, basically collecting much of my thoughts on a couple of confusing aspects of the Eddowes murder. -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour by Jon Smyth Was the portion of Eddowes apron actually in Goulston St. at 2.20am? Did the killer only use the apron to wipe his hands? Was the Goulston street graffiti old or new? Contentious issues that may never be satisfactorally answered. But if we look more closely at the evidence we can at least arrive at an acceptable solution. For instance, P.C. Alfred Long stated the portion of apron was not there at 2.20am when he passed Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street. This statement has been questioned by many who point out that seeing as how the portion of apron was taken from Eddowes in Mitre Square, and the murder had been committed between 1.35-1.44am. Then the discovery of this piece of evidence at 2.55am, approx 1500ft and 3 streets away raises serious concerns. Why a gap of over an hour? Obviously, the small portion of apron was simply overlooked by P.C. Long on his earlier pass along Goulston St. or at least that is a more satisfactory explanation There has never been any doubt that the portion of apron came from Catherine Eddowes. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated on the first day of the Inquest, held on Thursday October 4th, that "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street" Dr F. G. Brown described the portion of apron still with the body as 'it was the corner of the apron with a string attached'. Also, The Daily Telegraph, Oct 2nd, '....while throwing a light upon the movements of the murderer after he quitted Mitre Square, an important piece of evidence was obtained yesterday. When the body was examined there was a piece of white coarse apron still attached to it. The missing portion was discovered yesterday in Goulston Street....' And the last item in the police list of Eddowes belongings was ' 1 piece of old white apron'. These remaining references do not seem to describe a large portion of apron, as might be expected, the smaller piece presumably being the portion found in Goulston St. But maybe we've presumed wrong. In fact there had been no mention of Eddowes cut apron until the body was being stripped in Golden Lane mortuary, it may not have been obvious that she was wearing an apron until the body was at the mortuary. Any contemporary photographs showing East end women of the period clearly show that the type of apron was large, with a bib from the waist to the neck, with the bulk of it extending from the waist down to the ankles. This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back. Taking a measure from the waist down, we have 30-36" and to wrap around at the back at ankle level, would be something like 36" wide. This lower section (from the waist, down) of apron was in the order of 9 square feet of material, not including the bib portion. So, how big was this portion of apron found in Goulston Street? We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse: 'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.' - (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126) Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report: 'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'. - (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152) P.C. Long had found 'about half of it' or, if we allow for a little error in judgement on the high side we have 5-6 square feet, and if we allow for error on the low side, something in the order of 3-4 square feet. That is a sizable piece of cloth. So how is it that he could not see it the previous time when he passed the same location at 2.20am? Where was this piece of apron found, exactly? Even a piece this large in the shadows up against the wall and definitely black with dirt might be hard to see at night, and why did P.C. Long look inside the open entry way of the building?. The entry was not lighted. So how did he see, not only the dirty piece of cloth, but the chalk writing too? The answer to these questions will be known when we find the exact location of the graffiti, where was it written, on what portion of wall? Detective Halse said at the inquest ' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white' P.C. Long reported ' ....about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - the jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...' There have been a few suggestions over the years, that it must have been inside the entryway, otherwise P.C. Long would have seen the apron from the street. And as it was recorded that white walls were above the writing, it has been assumed the graffiti was low down, some even suggest very low down, all erroneous assumptions. In a confidential memorandum from Sir Charles Warren to Henry Mathews, we find specific mention of the location: Subject: 'The writing on the wall' '...I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London. There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....' So, here we have it, on the jamb of the open doorway, which also indicates the location of the large piece of apron, being below the graffiti, at the foot of the jamb, and just as noticable to anyone passing along the sidewalk. Now we have a better idea of why P.C. Long stated quite firmly at the inquest '...I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2.20am the apron was not there when I passed then' Also Detective Halse said at the inquest '...about 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything' Although the above is not conclusive, it does appear that a larger than previously thought, piece of apron was found in a very exposed spot at the edge of the sidewalk (footpath). And it was not there at 2.20am ....which does not sit well with some, mainly because it is not a tidy solution, and people prefer tidy solutions. So, where was the apron between 1.44am and 2.55am? ....if we give P.C. Long the benefit of the doubt then we must conclude the apron was with Jack. This puts an entirely different light on the matter, because that means Jack may well have lived in the immediate area. He may have taken the apron to his 'place' and the apron was cut large enough to carry away the organs that he removed, he had to carry them away in something, why not the cut-off apron? The uterus would be about the size of a small orange, warm and wet with blood, actually blood running out of it so wrapping it up in a folded cloth makes perfect sense. P.C. Long said the piece of apron was 'wet', but with us knowning that it had rained that night, and Lawende actually said it was raining at 1.30am, we can believe that the bottom edge of her apron was wet with rain as Eddowes walked. But if it was wet with blood (as reported in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 1888) then what would make it so? If you have blood-stained hands, and you wipe them on a cloth you dont easily wet the cloth, but only badly stain it. Blood is not wet like water and does not soak in as easily, so if the portion of apron was wet with blood then something may have been leaking into the cloth for a few minutes to make it that way. Jack may have sliced off a sizeable portion of apron, dropped the organs in it, wrapped them up and took the bundle to his 'place', removed the contents then returned to the streets to deposit the piece of apron some place distant from where he lived. How else do we account for the lost 'hour' in the journey of the apron. It was the press who started the suggestion that the killer had used the cloth to wipe his hands and then cast it aside as he fled the scene. This was the most likely explanation at the time, except for a small detail, Goulston street is several streets away from Mitre Square, and does not quite fit the idea of Jack wiping his hands and discarding the rag in the first available doorway. Look at any map of the area between Mitre Square & Goulston Street, the many turns he made and streets he crossed, covering over 1/3rd of a mile, 1500ft, this is a long way to be running while wiping his hands and a very conspicuous figure he would make too. But carrying a folded bundle would attract less attention. If Jack had fled the area with a rag just to wipe his hands the rag would have been deposited somewhere in the Hounsditch & Stoney Lane area. It doesnt take that long to wipe blood from your hands. If Jack left Mitre Square by St James Place, he would be crossing the square about 100 ft, to the northern passage exit, then up the passage, 55 ft, (still wiping his hands) then diagonally across St James Place, passing the all night manned mobile Fire station and the nightwatchman at the roadworks, about 120 ft, then eastward along little Duke Street passing several houses, (still wiping his hands) crossing Hounsditch then along Stoney lane passing about 40+ houses (still wiping his hands) to Middlesex street, about another 850 ft, still carrying the rag presumably not finished wiping his hands. Turning right running down Middlesex street for about 100 ft passing another 6 houses, then left, eastward again along New Goulston street until the end, another 250 ft. At this point he crosses the road and presumably discards the rag in the doorway of 108-119 Goulston street. Quite the distance considering he was only 'supposedly' wiping his hands. And what about the graffiti?...was it wrote by Jack? At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said '...the writing had the appearance of being recently written...', then in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, in response to a question of "why did you say it seemed to have been recently written?" Halse responded, "it looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing..." Graffiti of all kinds was not unusual, in fact it had proliferated since the murder of Annie Chapman, so there is no reason to think of this as anything special. The actual wording was under dispute from the very start due to the fact it was erased before it could be photographed. The spelling of the word 'Jews' has been open to question and even at the inquest there were 4 different recorded versions of it. So any theory that requires a particular spelling of the word is on shakey ground to begin with. On page 38 of the Eddowes Inquest papers we have 3 different spellings, line 6 = Jews, line 16 = Jewes, line 21 = Juews (Jeuws?). Then on page 42 = Juwes (Jewes?) And as mentioned before, the actual wording was disputed, Det. Daniel Halse recorded it as 'The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing' as opposed to P.C. Long's version '...The Jews (Juews) are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...'. There were other versions less well known but these two are the ones mentioned at the inquest. And as Long said, '...I copied the words from the wall into my report - I could not say whether they were recently written - I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews, there was a difference between the spelling...' Halse said he noted it down before it was erased, but here we have Long stating not only that he recorded it before it was erased but the fact it was witnessed by the Inspector. And the Inspector read his notes and apparently compared what was recorded with what was on the wall. So bearing that in mind, who's version would we feel was likely to be the most accurate? an unwitnesed version by Halse or a witnessed version by Long? The graffiti was not emblazoned across the wall as we might expect by a notorious flamboyant killer out to strike fear into the neighbourhood. Halse reported: "There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboys round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion" What is unsettling to me is this.....in these low income neighbourhoods, where people never roam more than a street or two, they know everything about their immediate surroundings, all the neighbours, all the gossip and because they pass in and out of this doorway several times a day, they will be intimate with the graffiti. Det. Halse: '....when Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of anyone who was likely to have been the murderer...' And City Solictor, Mr Crawford: '...as to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make a diligent search in every part of the tenements, the moment the matter came to their knowledge....' This aside from the Met. police search and the obvious newspaper hounds interviewing and chasing the public for any leads,.....why didn't any one of those locals, or anyone living in the building tell the police or the press that the graffiti was there yesterday, or it had been there a couple of days, or it was there last week? Not one comment to the police or press from anyone......we might ask ourselves, why? We might not like the idea of a piece of apron and a few lines of graffiti appearing at the same spot on the same night. This might imply a connection, and any connection might not fit in with our preconceived notions of who Jack was. The locals, neighbours and tenents, these people knew their surroundings, if this graffiti was old, if any one resident or neighbour had seen it before on the doorway wouldnt they have mentioned it to someone? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, although we have not solved anything we at least may have a better perspective on the events of that morning, which may lead us in another direction, if the apron indeed was not there at 2.20am, if Jack took it for something more than just to wipe his hands on, and if he went 'to ground', then returned to the streets some time later to drop it in another doorway, could he have scribbled some graffiti as a 'red herring' ....just for jolly?,...wouldnt you?. -------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2000 Stephen P. Ryder and John A. Piper. All rights reserved.
Author: Scott Nelson Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 08:21 pm
Thank you Jon, I read that a while back on the dissertation board. I even have a hard copy of it in my Casebook scrapbook (Oops! hope there's no copywrite)
Author: Jon Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 09:13 pm
Scott I look forward to your essay, I assume it will be a grand addition to the Dissertations board. Best wishes, Jon
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 09:48 pm
Jon, that was one heck of a write up you sent out. I've printed it out to read at leisure, if every thing there, is proved to have taken place and really has to be taken into account then all I can say is, there is a lot more to the Jack the Ripper mystery than meets the eye. I'm not saying I've changed my mind about Barnett, not at all, but before him, my man for the Ripper was faceless and nameless. But I believed he would have been English or Irish,someone who knew the language and the layout of Whitechapel well,--no Poles, Russians or Jews. At this moment I prefer to believe the piece of apron was too dirty to have been noticed first time around by P.C.Long. The Ripper didn't notice the writting on the wall, neither did the inhabitants,though they lived there, they were used to filthy streets and grafitti on the walls, they would look at it but they wouldn't see it. I didn't think the scrap of apron would be as big as it evidently was,but it could still have been screwed up and put in a jacket pocket whilst walking along Aldgate. The body parts could also have been put in a pocket after squeezing the blood out of them in the piece of apron, making it wet with blood if thats what "wet" meant, I'm guessing and surmising. Regards, Rick.
Author: Jon Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 10:54 pm
I'm glad you liked it Rick,....and yes, there just may be a lot more to this mystery than the extant evidence will allow us to believe. "Think outside the box" Regards, Jon One problem with Occams razor is, it can cut both ways. One mans simplicity is another mans complexity.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 03:42 am
Jon, Great dissertation. And as you rightly point out: ones Occams razor is not the other ones. Also it either has to be sharpened again or replaced once in a while. Greetings, Jill I previously had written 'tightly' instead of 'rightly'. Freudian?
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 02:24 pm
WHEN will everyone finally get the man's name right?? It's Father William of Ockham, not Occam or Occum. He wrote several very smart philosophical treatises during the period of the Condemnation of 1286, and thereabouts. "Ockham's razor" is a nickname given by subsequent academicians and disciples to a set of theories he advanced concerning perception and other matters. A rather short and frail fellow, he later was examined by Inquisitors and excommunicated, then died of the plague. I was chosen to present a paper on him and "Ockham's razor" at the International William of Ockham Colloquium held at St. Bonaventure University in Olean, New York, back around the fall of 1985, if I remember correctly. St. Bon's is way out in the country, and there were a number of deer wandering the campus as I approached the ampitheatre to deliver my paper. A number of influential academicians in attendance thought highly of it, and asked me to mail them copies of it. I originally wrote the paper under Professor Helen S. Lang at Trinity College, Hartford. Strangely, I can remember exact details of the shoes I was wearing while standing at the lectern that day (brown Florsheim Imperials I purchased at Vogue Shoes, half-resoled, but with the original laces), but have a harder time remembering my paper or the questions I was asked about it! Must be getting old... Shees! I'm sorry, but I've been sitting here reading these posts for two weeks with my skin crawling due to the mispelling. David
Author: Lisa Muir Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:16 pm
David, I, too, saw the original "Occam's Razor" entry and thought to myself, 'misspelled, misspelled'. And, yet, each subsequent entry copied the spelling. Eventually, I looked in the back of my dictionary to settle the matter. I found that it is "William of Ockham", also spelled, "Occam". Evidently, either spelling is permissible. Lisa