|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 29, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: General Discussion:
Witness Reliability :
Archive through May 29, 2001
Author: Geoffrey
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 02:53 pm |        | Greetings!
I am new to these discussions but would like to begin my own thread, if I may. It is often said the Ripper was never seen, and yet this web page alone lists over a dozen such witnesses, many with fairly vivid descriptions. How reliable are these witnesses?
Eagerly anticipating your replies,
Geoffrey |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 03:44 pm | | Greetings, Geoffrey:
A hearty welcome to the Casebook. We all hope you enjoy your time here trying to puzzle out this intriguing case. Some of us had some discussion on this very topic with Ripper author Stewart P. Evans yesterday in the Casebook chat room. It is not known if the Ripper was seen or not. Probably he was seen. However, Stewart, a former British policeman, suggests that the witness descriptions might be faulty in various respects based on his experience as a law enforcement officer. Remember these witnesses in Whitechapel were not trained observers, were observing somebody at night in poor lighting, and very often were relating the descriptions days afterward.
Chris George |
Author: Seth Bock
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 09:32 am | | To all knowledgeble Ripperheads,
I'm wondering what the current concensus is with regard to the accuracy of the Ripper profile, as compiled from the several witness acounts. 5'5", moustache... More specifically, was Schwartz's description known around town after he made his observation, either via word of mouth or the media? If so, I'd be curious to hear oppinions regarding whether or not the Schwartz description could have shaped/influenced what later witnesses observed.
Thanks,
Seth |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 04:07 pm | | Hi Seth,
Well, there was one eyewitness who described a man seen near Mitre Square.
She said he was about six foot tall, slim built, clean shaven and grey-haired, wearing clerical black clothes and a white bow tie - he was carrying a long long knife, a Guide to Oxford and kept approaching the prostitutes saying "hello I'm a famous writer, would you like a sweetie?"
But it probably doesn't mean anything!
Karoline |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 10:45 pm | | Seth,
How could you ever answer a question like that? What criteria could we use to determine if what Schwartz said influenced what others later said? In order to be able to evaluate this, you'd have to know what these same people would have said had Schwartz not said anything, then compare it to what they actually did say after Schwartz spoke, and that is impossible. What you're asking for are two parallel time/space loops. See what I mean? When we try to comprehend the Whitechapel murders, we ought to avoid this kind of thing. I know you mean well, but putting the matter into the Mobius dimension doesn't help.
Hath seen the white whale? The truth.
David |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 05:44 am | | | Thank you Karoline for bringing forward this very valuable witness statement. From the description, it seems confirmation of my long-held belief that the killer was Jerome K. Jerome. The Guide to Oxford obviously because he had just returned from a boat-trip. Confirmation can be found in his "Idle thoughts of an Idle Fellow" (pub. 1889) where he says: "Ah, that reminds me; such a funny thing happened the other day in Whitechape." Is this not the authentic voice of a depraved killer? |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 06:21 am | | I'm a little puzzled by the mixture of jocularity and incredulity your question has evoked, Seth. For while David's point is obviously sound - we simply can't make sensible conjectures about what might have influenced witnesses who weren't transparently echoing one another - the media (and especially subsequent historians') coverage of Schwartz is of genuine interest. As far as I can tell from my notes and recollections, he barely if at all made it into the national papers except for the 'Evening News'. He is not reported as having been called to the inquest, which led me to assume that the police preferred James Brown's evidence and dropped Schwartz because of the conflict in time, but led Paul Begg to wonder at one stage (given a throwaway later remark of Anderson's about 'the witness Schwartz') whether Schwartz might not have been called to an unpublished inquest session in camera because his evidence was so important the authorities wanted it kept out of the press. (I don't, myself, believe this was legally possible).
After that contemporary lack of coverage, one is confronted with the subsequent lack of historians' coverage. To the best of my knowledge, Schwartz was never mentioned in any book on the Ripper until Stephen Knight's. Which would be easily explained if previous researchers had simple restricted themselves to the easily accessed indexed reports in The Times and so missed the east London local papers' reports which covered Schwartz more fully. And of course Knight, as an east London journalist, would have had access to his own paper's back numbers very easily.
So I was very surprised when I found that the relevant pages of the east London papers in Colindale newspaper library were as well thumbed and obviously pored-over by many readers as the other Ripper pages in the same papers. (They stand out from the surrounding mass of local government information, court reports and the like, which have not been given a tenth the same amount of wear and tear). A lot of people knew about Schwartz before he became, as he always should have been, an important figure in the assessment of the Ripper case. I can't imagine why there was such a long silence on the subject.
(And, Hi Peter: as a fellow admirer of J Klapka, have you ever noticed that in 'Three Men in a Boat' the delivery boy's villainy is measured by the deep suspicion falling on him at the time of the Great Coram Street murder? Since this took place 16 years previously, the delivery boy would seem to be aged somewhere between 26 and 30. But had Jerome written just one year later he would have been able to exploit the more up-to-date and lastingly familiar Whitechapel murders, and we'd have the delivery boy as the first fictional suspect!)
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 01:15 pm | | Martin,
apologies for the jocularity, but Seth Bock thinks Lewis Carroll was the ripper and I humbly admit I cannot take that seriously.
Peter - of course the man seen in Mitre Square wasn't Jerome K. Jerome! You are clearly wandering off into the wilds of fancy here.
No - it was Mark Twain, who, as you are probably aware was the real author of the "Alice" books. He was clutching the Guide to Oxford in an attempt to throw suspicion on Druitt, who had photographs of him in his masonic apron, exposing his plumbline.
As a matter of fact I am currently writing a book on the subject called "Who Gives a Damn About Evidence? - Let's Just Make Up Some Crap and Get Rich". (Cheap and Dodgy Ltd. London)
Karoline |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 01:32 pm | | Martin:
And an additional mystery is that "Three Men on the Bummell" refers to "J's" CHILDREN including at least one boy whereas his brief biog in the front of the book only mentions one daughter. By the way, I think that the reference to Biggs' boy (the delivery boy) actually refers to the Bigg's boy at the time of the Gt. Coram St. Murder. The one assuming that George is the corpse's brother is a replacement.
Karoline:
As you are no doubt aware, study of Mark Twains credit card purchases over this period prove him absolutely to have been in Utah acting as The Prophet's secretary. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:26 pm | | Hi Karoline... Oh...! No... I can't take Lewis Carroll seriously as the Ripper either...! I thought he was out of the frame of your last posting because I couldn't imagine Mr Dodgson needing a Guide to Oxford by 1888, or ever boasting of himself as 'a famous writer' to anyone at all. Nor did I realize he was over six foot tall. I suppose I must have read it somewhere at some time, but it had completely slipped my memory. (Quite by the way, my mother's closest friend at Reading was taught by his nephew 'the Dodger'.)
I still think the sort of 'suppression' of Schwartz in the printed record is puzzling.
Hi Peter, You are obviously quite right. Driven to abandon my hopeless memory and go and look it up, I see it is quite clear: Biggs is charged with hiring a succession of villainous boys, and the Gt Coram St one '(of that period)' is manifestly distinguished from the one of 1888/9. I was so struck on noticing that JKJ was just too late to exploit the Ripper that my mind had merged the succession of boys into one over the five or six years since I last read the book.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 09:35 pm | | Dear Martin,
Schwartz's evidence suggested more than one "Jack". Two "Jacks"...is ONE too many! Maybe like Kipling's kangeroo (!) he was showing off.
Lying, or even confused...as was said of another witness with a strange tale to tell.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 06:54 am | | Dear Rosey,
Maybe Seth Bock needs the general health warning about your irrepressible humour so that he doesn't go chasing off with the impression that accepting Schwartz's account inevitably means accepting two Rippers - maybe even an accomplice at the scene, or assume that we all think Schwartz was unreliable or showing off.
Yellow Dog Fido (grinning like a coal scuttle) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 07:53 pm | | Dear Martin,
You may be right. The problem with the Oirish Method (double-edged humour) is that I inflict more wounds on myself. I am completely obscured in brown-paper bandiage at the moment. But I consider myself lucky to retain the sight of one eye, my drinking hand and my digging foot, and a store of ancient verse.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Seth Bock
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 09:20 am | | Dear Karoline...
I guess it's not kosher to go against the grain of cannonical thinking. Then again, would the world still be flat? There is one thing I do not appreciate, and that is being laughed at. But I guess esteemed authors and historians, such as yourself, are too entrenched in their own mountains of facts to climb to the peak for a view. By the way, it's shows great intolerance to ridicule people with different views. Very revealing.
As for my interest in Dodgson... I have been interested in the possibility of Dodgson being the Ripper for a couple of years. I have read In the Shadow, and find it to be superbly crafted. But unlike the works of Greanacre, and her lineage, I feel this book fails to enter the symbolic world of Alice, perhaps deliberately. I have also read Wallace's work and find it to be equally evocative. I believe biography is inherently subjective therefore I take Wallace and Leach, alike, with a grain of salt.
There are definitely 'facts' that cast a shadow over the Dodgson proposition. However, if there was one person in all of England capable of hoodwinking Scottland Yard and future historians it was Dodgson. Karoline will attest to that. He could have easily created alibis, etc. Whether or not he has the MO of a serial killer is another question for another time. The main detractor from the Dodgson theory, in terms of Ripper related evidence, is the general description of the killer, as purveyed by Schwartz and later witnesses. I wonder, and yes, this is obviously speculatory, to what degree the 'collective unconscious' of East Enders was influencing what they saw and heard. If any population was vulnerable to rumors and the power of suggestion it was the East End. Hysteria clouds the senses. So my question is,(and Martin, thank you for giving me a no-nonsense response) is there anything in the record to suggest that the witnesses were influenced in their descriptions by a prevailing unconscious understanding of what the Ripper looked like?
-- And Martin, I'm curious to know if you've read Wallace's book.
-- Karoline, contrary to my earlier comments, I do respect your work and am curious to know if you have written any serious rebuttles about this topic, and where I might find them.
Food for thought,
Seth |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 10:40 am | | Hi Seth,
Yes. I didn't like it and it didn't convince me.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 12:30 pm | | Hi, Seth:
Indeed, you will find a rebuttal to the Wallace theory, "Jack Through the Looking Glass" by Karoline Leach on the Casebook Productions site http://www.casebook-productions.org/main.htm. Look at the navigation bar on the left and you will find the article archived under the Vol. 2, No. 3 (January 2001) issue of Ripper Notes.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 11:42 pm | |
Evidently Stewart Evans considers PC Steve White an
unreliable witness. Where can one find the complete commentary by Evans in response to the White story?
Is it on the message board or is it a dissertation? Please be specific. I've tried keyword search with no luck. Thanks.
Robeer |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 08:47 am | | Hi, Robeer:
Hopefully someone will find the Evans post on PC Stephen White for you. However, the point about the Stephen White story is that it was reported decades later after the policeman was dead, and not by White himself but by a newspaper reporter. Thus, errors and distortion have probably crept in, and the story might in fact be made up or even refer to another crime entirely and not the one in Mitre Square. As I understand it, and if I am wrong someone please correct me, there is no contemporary evidence to show that White was in the area at the supposed time let alone any verifiable testimony that might indicate that the story has some basis. All this being so, this explains why a Ripperologist such as Stewart Evans would choose to reject the story as having any factual basis.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 11:56 am | | Stewart's rather compelling analysis of the Stephen White reminiscence (written by someone other than White, as Christopher George has pointed out), can be found under-
Ripper Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [1888-1919]: Druitt, Montague John: Archive through March 28, 2000.
Hope this helps.
Wolf. |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 10:17 pm | | Christopher and Wolf,
Many thanks for your help. I found the article by Evans less than convincing and now I'm even more puzzeled. Rumbelow instantly recognized the location referred to in the article and why not?
Mitre Square is a cul-de-sac and the victim's body was found next to a wall. Aldgate is a continuation of Whitechapel Road. Metropolitan H Division patrolled part of Aldgate. Nothing in this story should cause anyone to dismiss this account as irrelevant.
If someone were to place a prize of a million pounds in a box at Mitre Square and give only the following directions,
"Ripper case, body found next to wall, cul-de-sac behind Whitechapel Road"
do you think anyone would race to any other location first other than Mitre Square? I can't believe Evans or any other detective familiar with this famous case would say, "Darn it, I just couldn't figure out where they were talking about!" If so, it is no wonder the case was never solved.
Detective Inspector White had a long career with the Met PD. If anyone were to write an unauthorized story using his name to promote a fiction, you would think his family and associates would immediately react with outrage and take steps to protect his reputation.
The article does indeed lack many details but it is still in the ballpark and worth serious consideration.
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 01:45 am | | Christopher,
According to Andrew Morrison in the Casebook 'Dissertations' section Stephen White was born in 1854 and died in 1919, shortly before the article appeared.
White could have told the story to a colleague knowing his death may be imminent. Obviously he kept quiet about it for over 30 years. While we may consider him a celebrity at this point in time, White, no doubt, was not proud of the fact he personally let Jack the Ripper slip through a stakeout he was in charge of.
Public knowledge of this fact would have had probably ended his career as a police officer. Promotion to Inspector would have been out of the question. Promoting the Sergeant who let Jack get away to kill again would not engender public confidence in the Metropolitan Police. The horrible death of the last victim may have haunted White for the rest of his life, knowing had he reacted more aggressivly that night he might have prevented any more murders by this crazed killer.
Going public with this story at the time would have subjected the department to severe criticism, and White might have had to endure the scorn and ridicule of his peers, and scathing denunciatiation by the press, who in all probability would be calling for his resignation. It is possible that his superiors, knowing the public outrage that would surely result from making this story public, swore White to secrecy. His future career as a Metropolitan police officer would depend on his own silence.
To clear his conscience, he may have told the story to someone he could trust to not make it public until after his death. It is clear that in no way did he or his family benefit from this story, nor did the anonymous author. Fame and fortune can therefore be ruled out as motives. Someone might have had a grudge against White and placed the story to humiliate him but what good would that do after his death? So this motive is doubtful.
Because the story is so eerie and some of the details so curious perhaps White was persuaded to allow publication of this encounter, but only after his death. Maybe he wanted the public to stop suspecting Jews or other foreiners knowing Jack was indeed an Englishman and a cultured one at that. This is one more reason his superiors may have insisted on his silence. At that time the upper class was considered morally superior to the lower class. The implication Jack was from the upper class would send shock waves through Victorian society.
White evidently had a successful career retiring at age 46. He died at age 65. That was plenty of time to write his memoir and include the story, or give an interview to the press which would have made sensational copy. He would have become an instant celebrity and perhaps even made some money. He opted not to do that which indicates he may have sworn an oath to never reveal the story while he lived. Breaking this oath may have cost him his pension. Whatever the reason the appearance of this article so soon after his death suggests White may have acquiesced to its ultimate publication. Once again, the absence of any protest from his family and colleagues indicates they belived the story to be true.
Robeer |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 07:09 am | | Hi Robeer:
Sounds like you have the basis for a book or at least an article in Ripper Notes. Your arguments are interesting. Certainly, cover-up charges are nothing new in this case. Liverpool writer Tom Slemen is alleging the same thing in regard to a new suspect, Colonel Claude Conder, a friend of Sir Charles Warren's (see the board on "A new and very credible JTR suspect"). Unfortunately for the theory regarding White, there is no other evidence to bear it out, no contemporary (1888) documentation, no later notes from other policemen, and so on, to lead us to believe it may be true.
You may well be right in your speculations on why the story is factual but without other information to say it could be true, you could be wrong as well. Remember that this is a high profile case. People have been trying for decades to prove the identity of Jack the Ripper. It makes great newspaper copy. When a policeman who had some connection to the case died, it might have been expected that a newspaperman might light on a story that the policeman knew the identity of the Ripper. I may be wrong about that. I encourage you to consider writing an article for Ripper Notes about your speculations about the White story.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 10:42 am | | Robeer, consider this for a moment. As C-G has said, what you are suggesting is a cover up and conspiracy that goes well beyond the word and career of White.
The article speaks of two other Constables working under White, they would have to be part of this cover up, also sworn to silence. Indeed, they would have to have kept their silence and taken this knowledge to the grave as no word of this event has leaked from any secondary source.
Also, in order to begin this cover up, remember, it was a very tight time frame between the last time Eddowes was seen alive and the discovery of her body, a matter of some ten minutes or so, White and his men must have decided themselves, at the moment that the victims body was found, to say nothing, to raise no alarm and to walk away in silence, a dereliction of duty that would call for their immediate expulsion from the force, or at least block White from any future advancement. If, however, you believe that they would have raised the alarm but that at some later time police authorities told White and his two Constables to be silent on the matter, then you have to also believe that Constable Watkins was brought into the conspiracy, for conspiracy it would now become, and told to make the claim that it was he who had first discovered the body of Katherine Eddowes in Mitre Square. To add verisimilitude to Watkins story, we would now have to add George Morris, the night watchman at Kearley and Tonge's, to our plot, as well as P.C. Harvey, who responded to Morris's whistle. These three men, Watkins, Morris and Harvey, would now have to lie under oath at the Coroners inquest.
We now have at least six men, not counting God knows how many police officials and other constables who were present in Mitre Square that night and would surely have heard some snippets of what had gone on, who are drawn into this conspiracy, all of whom say nothing on the matter except the one man who's actions can truly be faulted, Stephen White. If all this can be gotten around, then perhaps, yes, White's tale might have some merit to it.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 06:27 pm | | What we are forgetting , if we assume that White's tale refers to the Alice Mckenzie/Castle Alley murder , is that Claypipe Alice was murdered in July. Although I have no exact meterological information in front of me for 16th July 1889 , I would presume it does not fit with White's description of the night in question :
" It was a bitter cold night when I arrived at the scene to take the report of the two men in hiding "
In fact Alice met 3 friends sitting on the steps of a public house just before midnight - they would hardly be sitting there if it was freezing cold !
September 30th 1888 DOES fit the picture however : the temperature in London that day had fallen 16 degrees Fahrenheit to just above freezing and snow had fallen in the North of England.
BUT - ! - suppose this is not the Mitre Square murder we are talking about , but the Elizabeth Stride / Berner Street murder instead !!! Is there any evidence to suggest we are talking about the murder of Long Liz ?
Well...
(i) Berner Street is "...behind the Whitechapel Road " , a mere 5 minutes walk from there and even less from Commercial Street , so it could fit. Whereas Castle Alley is off Whitechapel High Street part of the road , not Whitechapel Road itself.
(ii) Dutfield's Yard is a cul-de-sac - it could only be entered from the Berner Street gate.
(iii) The police had a reason to have the alley under observation : it housed the International Workingmen's Educational Club , quote " One of the favoured centres for immigrant anarchists and intellectuals " ( A-Z p.187 ). By the time of Alice McKenzie's murder the police investigation had been scaled down somewhat so it is unlikely H Division would have had men on watch for the Ripper then.
The Whitechapel police would have wanted IMHO that " Persons entering the alley would have been under observation. " and the fact that the club had anarchist/socialist sympathies would tie in with the first part of the People's Journal article :
...it was the duty of White to visit their ( i.e. anarchists ) dens and to be able to lay hands on some of the most dangerous men in Europe
(iv) The other policeman has only taken a few steps into the alley when he notices the corpse , similar to the way Louis Diemschutz comes across it. The position of the murder victim is similar to the position of Stride too : " At the end of the cul-de-sac , huddled against the wall , there was the body of a woman , and a pool of blood was streaming along the gutter from her body. ".
To be fair the Alice Mackenzie body also had blood streaming from it , but although Kate Eddowes was found in a pool of blood , no blood was streaming from her corpse. Also , McKenzies body was found under a streetlight , this does not fit with the other policeman , who "...
walked a few paces into the darkness of the alley". Castle Alley was not going to be dark , it was lit by a lamp. Mitre Square was also lit by lamps. Dutfield's yard was NOT lit by a lamp.
(v) Quote , the murderer was "...lost to sight in the labyrinth of East End mean streets. " after he escaped from the crime scene. This rules out both Castle Alley and Mitre Square I think ; the latter because it is not in the East End and the former because it would have been much more likely the killer would have escaped up the Whitechapel Road or down Aldgate High Street. In contrast , wasn't the area south of Berner Street known as Tiger Bay and ruled by street gangs ? If not , Berner Street is surrounded by other little streets which the man could have fled into.
From what we know about the Stride murder , White's story could fit in well with what we know of what actually happened. We know Schwartz sees Stride about 12.45pm with her possible killer ,and then Diemschutz finds her body about 1am in the morning. Inbetween these two events there is plenty of time for White to arrive at the scene , find Jack leaving the scene of the crime , and chase after the killer with the other policeman.
Please comment on my speculations !
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 07:05 pm | | Aha !
According to Mr Fido , Brunswick Street ( south of Berner Street ) was known as ' Tiger Bay ' , a rough street near the Thames. And Batty Street was nearby , scene of the murder of Miriam Angel.
Mean streets indeed ! ( See ' The Crimes , Detection and Death of JTR , Fido , p.39 )
Do we know if there was a wall-lamp in Berner Street ? I suspect there may have been a light over the door of the ' Nelson ' , thus fitting White's story. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 02:27 pm | | | FURTHERMORE (!!) the only other time that Steve White enters the Ripper case ( as far as I remember ) is interviewing witnesses in Berner Street after the night of the ' Double Event ' , including Matthew Packer. This suggests that this was White's beat and that he was assigned to this area - another connection between White's account and Berner Street and Stride's murder. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 04:07 pm | | Simon, a couple of things. First, was it "...a bitter cold night when I arrived at the scene to take the report of the two men in hiding."? According to my information the low on 29 September 1888 was 55°F., while the low on the 30th was around 44°F. It is possible that the temperature dropped steadily from 55°(if we assume that to be the temperature at midnight considering that was the low for the 29th,) but unlikely that it would have dropped 11° in one hour to the low of 44° on the 30th. A temperature around 55° F. is hardly "bitterly cold", even for you non Canadians.
As for your wondering about the street lights along Berner street here is an exchange from the Stride inquest reported in The Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, October 3, 1888:
"The Foreman: Some of the papers state that Berner-street is badly lighted; but there are six lamps within 700 feet, and I do not think that is very bad.
The Coroner: The parish plan shows that there are four lamps within 350 feet, from Commercial-road to Fairclough-street.
Witness, Constable Henry Lamb: There are three, if not four, lamps in Berner-street between Commercial- road and Fairclough-street. Berner-street is about as well lighted as other side streets. Most of them are rather dark, but more lamps have been erected lately.
The Coroner: I do not think that London altogether is as well lighted as some capitals are.
Witness, Constable Henry Lamb: There are no public-house lights in Berner-street."
Simon, I would have to agree with you and Bob Hinton that the article in the People's Journal seems to indicate Berner street as the location rather than Mitre Square, as Donald Rumbelow has stated, or Castle Alley, although it fits nicely with the line about being just behind the Whitechapel Road. I also strongly agree with Bob that the whole tale seems to be a cobbling together of the Stride murder and a journalistic flight of fancy.
The description of the body tallies nicely with that of Elizabeth Stride and we know, as you have stated, that White was involved with the Stride murder, (also with the Pinchin street torso murder, in the same area in 89,) but do the facts indicate a truthful account? Remember, the whole tale is supposed to be taken from an actual police report submitted by White to Scotland Yard and it obviously is not. Bob is right, a kernel of the story, the Stride murder, seems to be correct but the rest is pure fantasy.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 05:21 pm | | My information about the weather comes from ' The Ripper Legacy ' by Howells and Skinner , p.102 , paperback edition :
The Mitre Square murder was committed at approximately 1.45 on the morning of 30 September and on that particular day the temperature in London had fallen by a dramatic sixteen degrees Fahrenheit to just above freezing. Snow had fallen in the North of England and a week later hard frost in Hyde Park would considerably hamper Sir Charles warren's bloodhound trials."
Maybe Keith Skinner will be able to comment on this for us ?
Its possible that , although there were no pub lights in Berner Street , that one of the street lights could have been mounted on a wall ; is it possible to get any further information on this ?
I suspect that the phrase ' There are three , if not four lamps in Berner Street ' from the Telegraph above might indicate that one was a wall-lamp , but that is my speculation.
As to Sgt White's report , it seems that the writer of the ' People's Journal ' report is quoting from it when writing his article. Is it possible that the report has merely gone missing , like so many other documents on this case ? If so , it may resurface one day from someone's private collection.
Castle Alley is not however ( IMHO ) behind Whitechapel Road. Firstly , it leads off from Whitechapel High Street ; secondly , having walked the ground I would say that ' behind ' the Whitechapel Road would refer to a road south of that road whereas Castle Alley ran north. Thirdly we would say in the UK that Castle Alley was ' off ' Whitechapel High Street , or that it ' led ' off the High Street ( because it was connected to it ).
If White was talking about a street north of Whitechapel Road he might have said ' above Whitechapel Road'.
Which facts do not tally with the Stride case about the article ? Surely they are minor ones ? Is it not clear that the article can be talking about the Elizabeth Stride murder and no other ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 05:29 pm | | | We also must consider this : after the publication of the article , we have no evidence that the friends , family or ex-colleagues of Stephen White wrote in to the Peoples Journal and complained that the article was a total fabrication , a pure lie. We don't have any memoirs from White contradicting the story ( do we ? ). We must also ask : why this particular policeman ? Why not write this story about Abberline or Thicke , a more famous figure in the case ? And why wait 30 years after the case was over in any case , why not ( if you were going to make up an article ) say that an anonymous policeman had seen the Ripper and write the article in 1891 or earlier ? There were still policeman involved in the case who were living in 1919 who could refute the article , Abberline being the prime example. |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 04:25 pm | | Simon, Wolf, Christopher,
Excellant discussion and details. The Berner Street alternative seems very plausible, however, there is more to consider about Mitre Square.
I am puzzeled by the debate that Mitre Square is not a cul-de-sac. Websters defines cul-de-sac simply as "a street closed at one end". The literal translation of the French is "bottom of the sack". Both of those definitions apply to Mitre Square. Pertaining to vehicular access Mitre Square is a street closed at one end. 'Street' comes from the Latin word 'strata' meaning 'paved road'.
Webster definitions of street: "A throughfare esp. in a city, town or village usu. including sidewalks, and being wider than an alley or lane. The part of the street reserved for vehicles. A thoroughfare with abutting property."
Nothing in these definitions would eliminate Mitre Square from being a cul-de-sac. Most street references are from the point of view of vehicular traffic. From this reference usage Mitre Square is a paved road for vehicular traffic that is closed at one end. If you are using a vehicle to get from one place to another better not turn down Mitre Square because it is a dead end; in other words, a cul-de-sac.
From a pedestrian point of view Mitre Square is not a dead end but, once again, most common usage of street terminology pertains to vehicular traffic function, not pedestrian.
The next debate is White's use of the word 'alley'. More on that later.
Keep in mind that after White realizes there has been a murder he attempts to follow the suspect:
"I remembered the man I had seen, and I started after him as fast as I coud run, but he was lost to sight in the dark labyrinth of the East End mean streets."
If he is chasing the suspect he was not around the cluster of officers at the crime scene. His team of officers may have stayed at their post until his return or until they were relieved of duty, so they too would not be mentioned as present at the crime scene.
More to come.
Robeer |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 05:24 pm | | | Unfortunately , White's description does say "It could only be entered from where we had two men posted in hiding..." which does seem to rule out Mitre Square as it had 3 exits/entrances at least. I would agree with the description of ' cul-de-sac ' however , generally being a street closed to road traffic at one end , but I should point out the French is more rude than ' bottom of the bag '!!! Ciel mon marie !!! |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 06:03 pm | | Both Bob and Wolf have stated that the article seems to be a melange or amalgamation of several Ripper cases , but this is something that I have yet to see : I cannot see why the whole tale cannot refer to the Stride murder alone.
Lets set up three sections here : Section 1 will contain points where the White article matches the Stride murder factually. Section 2 will contain points where there is a strong probability that the article is talking about the Stride murder. And Section 3 will contain points which differ factually from the Stride murder.
Section 1 :
* The weather of the article matches the weather on 30th September 1888 according to Howells and Skinner.
* Dutfield's yard could only be entered from one way.
* The victim was huddled against the wall.
* Blood was streaming into the gutter.
Section 2 :
* Berner Street/Dutfield's Yard could probably be described as being "...behind Whitechapel Road" - as for why , see my theory above ( 25th May post at 5:21pm )
* Dutfield's Yard could fit both the description of a cul-de-sac ( closed to traffic with houses within it ) and an alley.
* The police were likely to be watching the Workingmen's Institute because people who went there had anarchist and socialist opinions.
* This area of the East End was probably Steve White's ' beat '.
* Steve White may have been detailed to question witnesses because he may have had a specific involvement in the Stride murder viz the subject of this article.
* Berner Street ( or environs ) probably had a wall-lamp under which White states he saw the Ripper.
* The killer could easily escape into the ' mean streets ' that surrounded Berner Street.
Section 3 :
* As far as we know , Stride's body wasn't located at the end of the cul-de-sac , rather it was discovered not far into the yard. However , the article does state that the other policeman saw the body in the darkened alley after having walked only a few paces in , so this may indicate that he almost found himself on top of it.
From the information in Section 1 we can rule out the other murders : the weather rules out Nichols and McKenzie , the location of the body rules out Kelly and Tabram , the streaming blood rules out Chapman and Eddowes , the position of the body rules out Chapman and Frances Coles.
I think that the article could only really refer to Stride , McKenzie or Eddowes anyway , but for the latter two one must disregard important statements made in the article. It has to be Stride and it can only refer to Stride IMHO. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 07:25 am | | Simon - Section 2, pt 3: 'likely to be' - an ancient Paul Begg speculation, which has expanded of late to the impression that Littlechild 'must have known' all about the Ripper investigation. Your wording actually indicates the warning that this is speculative. I merely reinforce it, remarking that as far as I know Special Branch was still more interested in Irishmen than anarchists in 1888, and we simply don't know whether they would have been interested in the IWEC or hd any specific part to play in the Ripper enquiry.
Section 2, pt.4: You put 'beat' in inverted commas. But the term cannot be applied to the peregrinations of a CID sergeant. The fact that he also did house-to-house there when interviewing Packer, however, does suggest that this may have been his patch or manor.
And re your general conclusions, I think the whole piece is so obviously dressed up and semi-fictitious that, without going the whole hog like Stewart Evans and dismissing it as completely worthless - (i.e., I think something rather generally like this probably happened to some sergeant somewhere) - I don't think it lends itself to the scrutiny of minutiae to establish the truth: a practice against which one should enter a general caveat, anyway. That way lies the madness of Kennedy assassination buffs dissecting the 22 volumes of Warren Report evidence, and coming up with wagon loads of tosh.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 09:22 am | | Dear Robeer & Everyone,
I'm sorry but I don't think delving into the literal meanings of foreign phrases will in any way convince anyone that 'cul de sac' could mean Mitre Square. The accepted meaning of the phrase is an area with only one entrance and hence only one exit. This is not important to the 'White' version it is fundamental. If there was more than one entrance to the area it would completely negate the identification of the stranger as the killer as he could be Joe Public out for a walk whilst the real killer makes his escape using another exit.
I agree that 90% of the White story refers to Stride, the one element that doesn't is the extremely detailed description of the 'killer'. This I would suggest could possibly have been suggested by Hutchinsons description of the stranger involved in MJK's murder.
I have covered the White story quite extensively in From Hell page 181.
However let me leave you with one fact that many are disregarding. There is absolutely nothing to connect this story to Stephen White, other than some anonomous person says it was. Surely any piece of information with a provenance such as this should be disregarded in its entireity, especially since it is shown to be so palpably false in every important detail.
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS As to the weather conditions on the night of the double event I can vouch for them as I had to get the records from the authorities for my book. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 12:04 pm | | Bob , its easy to dismiss the association of White with the story but you have not addressed the point I made earlier : why associate the story with White and not with one of the more famous characters involved in the case ?
If the story was so much gibberish , why was there not a flood of letters to the newspaper rubbishing the story ? At least some of White's colleagues must have still been alive who knew about this story , indeed Abberline certainly was ! Surely someone would have written up to decry the account , especially as it was both anonymous and anecdotal.
Does the similarity to Hutchinson's description mean one or both accounts were made up , or is it just possible White and he were both describing the same man ? |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 05:10 am | | The 'flood of letters' point is easily answered, isn't it, Simon? Only the sergeant concerned (deceased if White), one or both of the men keeping obbo, and the musical-voiced suspect could have confirmed or denied the account. (Police protocol would almost certainly have debarred any desk officer from saying, 'No such report from Sgt White exists'. He could have left himself and the force egg-faced if one turned up in a dusty drawer).
And I don't think there is any similarity to Hutchinson's man, since the words 'shabby-genteel' seriously lower the class standing of the latter.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 07:02 am | | Dear Simon,
I think you're trying to make a non point by saying 'Why associate the story with White?' You're asking me to say why someone who writes anonomous letters to newspapers mentions certain people in those letters. I've no idea since I don't do that sort of thing and have no conception of the mindset of a person who does. How ever If I was that sort of person I would pick White because as he was dead he could hardly be in a position to deny such a story would he?
You might just as well ask why do people attribute certain events to certain people. For example I assume you don't believe Lewis Carroll was the killer and yet there are people who will assure you he was - your question would then be 'Why mention Lewis Carroll if he didn't do it?'
Your opening sentance thus does not make any sense. You say its easy to dismiss any association of White with the story - of course it is, I say again THERE IS NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN STEPHEN WHITE AND THIS STORY. Unless he was using a planchette he didn't write the story, he apparently never made any mention of the story,and the story doesn't bear any resemblance between him and actual events. If you removed Whites name and inserted Bugs Bunny it still would make as much sense.
However if you think there is an association could you tell us what it is?
Martin, when I drew a comparison between Whites man and Hutchinsons man I didn't mean it was a description of the same physical appearance, but that in both cases a detailed description is given. I believe these are the only two occassions of such a detailed description being given. PS Will you be attending the conference this year?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Hello everyone !
The point I was trying to make about the White article was this : that it was more likely to be true because it was about a minor figure involved in the investigation , rather than about someone like Major Smith or Abberline.
The question we have to ask about who wrote the article is : what was their motive in doing so ? Surely not for financial reward ? Not for any sort of prestige since it was penned anonymously. And since Sgt White was dead , he could gain no glory from it himself.
Since the events happened over 30 years previously , the publication was not going to have any effect on the case itself. And to those who might say it was penned by a ' hack ' to spice up the newspaper , why not keep the hero of the piece anonymous or make the Ripper part the main focus of the article ? After all , White had just died and his family and kin could have been offended by the implication that he could have caught the Ripper but let him escape.
I agree that White did not write the story , but whether he mentioned the story OR NOT is a matter of speculation either way , at present we don't have any evidence to say that he did.
Its just I fail to see any motive for making up the article , or placing White in the story unless it really happened to him. Are we saying people just make up stories about dead people and send them to the newspapers for no reason ?
PS : If Bugs Bunny was in the story , he would have said " Yeeuurrr...whassup Jack ! "  |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 03:30 pm | | Hi Simon,
When a story purports to be an official report, yet manifestly (on stylistic grounds) isn't, then somebody's done some making up somewhere. It might be a journalist getting an extra penny a line for a longer memorial/obit notice; it might have been White embroidering something that happened to him or, as I suspect, at some time telling or being understood to tell somebody else's story as though it happened to him, and this getting passed along to appear in journalistic form. I agree with you that something like this probably happened to some one who was probably a sergeant and could even have been White. But in asking for reasons why a false story could have appeared, you're inviting us to exercise our creative imaginations, and goodness knows, Ripper enthusiasts have never found any dificulty in backing up all manner of weird and wonderful beliefs by so doing!
Hi Bob,
It's terribly unlikely that I shall be in England at the time, and virtually certain that I shouldn't know soon enough to be a properly registered conferer.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 01:54 am | | Simon,
You are asking all the right questions. Chances are very good White was at one of the two locations that night in September 1888. The maddening question is which one? Maybe both. White's belief there was only one entrance for pedestrian access into his cul-de-sac is a major problem. After five nights on stakeout of this area you would think he would be well aware Mitre Square was accessible from three different directions for pedestrians. Could the Metro police be that obtuse? No wonder they never saw Jack enter the square. He probably came in the back way and met his victim inside. She too may have entered by one of the other entries. It is hard to accept Met PD would stake out an area and not know the various pathways in and out. It is amazing they stumbled on to Jack leaving by the main entrance, assuming the Mitre Square scenario. This curiosity argues in favor of Berner Street.
Other than this perplexing part of the story there is more evidence to argue for Mitre Square. It has been mentioned by more than one source empty houses next to the square. Evidently the vacant houses attracted prostitutes to the area. Three empty houses backed up to the wall where the body was found. This fits White's narrative of having just taken the report of his team, he turns to see Jack coming through the main entrance. White refers to this as an alley. Sergeant White would have been standing on the same sidewalk as Jack was turning the corner to leave the scene. It has been confirmed Mitre Square did have wall lamps.
The alley proximity to Whitechapel continues to cause questions. In comparison, Mitre Street may seem more like an alley which led from Mitre Square to Aldgate, a wider street that shortly connects to Whitechapel. Mitre Square comes closer to this description than any other site.
However, White being a Met Police Sergeant, it seems more likely he would be keeping Berner Street under surveillance than Mitre Square.
On the other hand, White mentions the horrible sight of the victim that instantly confirms this is a Ripper murder. White was an experienced Sergeant who we can assume had seen murders before. In one respect the Berner Street murder was nothing out of the ordinary for the East End. The victim only had her throat cut. Their are some who even doubt Stride was a Ripper victim because of the lack of mutilation. White's strong reaction argues more for Mitre Square.
In White's description of the suspect he makes no mention of a hat, only jet black hair. This would seem odd for such a cold day. One explanation for the strange phenomenon of the reflection of the eyes may suggest the suspect was wearing glasses.
The shoes caught White's attention. He mentions they were a rare item in those days indicating they might be rather expensive. One would guess that sportsmen and outdoorsmen would be the first to experiment with these new high tech shoes.
Rumbelow in his comments uses the word 'close' to describe the scene. He may be quoting Anderson directly. That term would apply to Mitre Square.
In Rumbelow's book quoting the article, the second longest paragraph in the story is an explanation of why Sergeant White didn't detain the suspect. He seems to belabor the point as if trying to justify his lack of initiative. This could be the central purpose of the whole article, to excuse his actions on that night 30 years prior.
In one regard it doesn't matter which site White was at that night. Chances are White still met Jack face to face and actually spoke to him. If so White's description is the most important one concerning the appearance of Jack the Ripper.
Robeer |
|
|
|
|
