|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 22, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion):
Archive through November 22, 2000
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 11:20 am |        | Hi, CMD:
You wrote in terms of the alleged shawl of Kate Eddowes, which I fear is another piece of Ripper "bunkum" along with the purported Maybrick diary and watch and the supposed Mary Jane Kelly Providence Row crucifix which Melvyn Fairclough and Anne Graham claim was with the bloody diary:
"Pamela Ball, author of 'JTR: A Psychic Investigation,' believes [the shawl] is real. Whether you accept her verdict depends entirely, of course, on whether you accept the validity of 'psychic' phenomena, and I most assuredly do not."
WHAT?????!!!!! Say it ain't so, Boss!!!!
I was so looking forward to us getting together for a quiet little SEANCE during the upcoming April 8-9 JtR convention in Park Ridge, New Jersey, and calling up the spirits of Mary Jane Kelly, Joe Barnett, Frederick Abberline, Sir Charles Warren, George Lusk, Jim and Flo Maybrick, James K. Stephen, Montague John Druitt, Sir William Withey Gull, Stephen Knight, and last but certainly not least clairvoyant Robert James Lees, who, with the able assistance of Mr. Knight, I am certain could tie the solution to this nasty but enduring mystery into a neat little bundle for us. :-)
Yours truly,
Chris George.... (Pam Ball's no. 1 fan ha ha)
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
conference@casebook-productions.org
http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 08:09 am | | | I have been asked for information as to who was in the cells at Bishopgate police station at the same time as Kate Eddowes - can anyone remember where the site is with the stuff about it on it ? Many thanks for any help that anyone can give me ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 06:10 pm | | To Jon Smyth from Simon Owen.
Hi Jon !
I read with great interest about your exploits in Mitre Square long ago on a dark Sunday morning.( on the David Cohen board ) Particularly that your friend couldn't see you from Church Passage.
This suggests that Mitre Square was very dark indeed , and as we know Eddowes was killed and cut up in the darkest part of the square. Do you think you would be able to give answers to some questions that I have therefore , based on your own experiences ?
Here goes then - : (i) Do you believe that a killer would be able to see to cut up a body and remove its kidney in the dark part of Mitre Square as you remember it ? (ii) you say that your footsteps echoed around the square as you walked. Do you think somebody behind a door 20 foot away would have been able to hear those footsteps ?( i.e. the nightwatchman ). The point being , although the Ripper might have been able to silence his footsteps or wear rubber soled shoes , Kate Eddowes was wearing heavy working mens boots.
If footsteps did echo around the square , would the Ripper not have known this , presuming he had staked out his potential murder sites well ? If so , would he still have chosen Mitre Square as a site for murder ?
Whatever , Jon's information bodes very well for David's ' bottleneck ' theory !
Thanks Jon ! |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 07:21 pm | | | Could Jack have been blind? This would account for his remarkable functionality in the dark. It would also account for the bottleneck motif. If someone was coming he would have to be able to hear it. Some kind of long passageway would give him the opportunity to do that. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 08:13 pm | | Simon's Question:
(i) Do you believe that a killer would be able to see to cut up a body and remove its kidney in the dark part of Mitre Square as you remember it ?
-------------------------------
Yes, though it was very dark it was not so dark that I could not see my own feet or hands, it was dark enough that I could not be seen from 70ft away. Remember there was an old building behind me and being crouched down it was not possible to pick me out of the shadows.
Of course I never told my friend where I was going to be either, this was my experiment, not his.
If he knew, he may have been able to pick me out. But that would not have met the test. PC Harvey did not expect to see anyone at a particular location either.
Simon's Question:
(ii) you say that your footsteps echoed around the square as you walked. Do you think somebody behind a door 20 foot away would have been able to hear those footsteps ?....
--------------------------------
If you recall the nightwatchman at Kearly & Tonge stated in his testimony that he usually heard the footsteps of the policeman on his beat through the square.
The buildings were very tall & the square rather small and cobbled throughout. Any hard soled shoe/boots would echo for a distance.
Also the noise of regular daytime business tends to mask the more quieter happenings, like footsteps. But at night sound appears to carry, no extraenous noises to intefere with the sound of footsteps.
If (and its a big IF) we can rely on the stated times given for the police on their beats that night. Then we have a time window of roughly 5 mins at best. PC Watkins patrols the Sq. at 1.30am. Lawende passes Catherine & suspect together at Duke St. end of Church Passage at 1.32am. PC Harvey walks to end of Church Passage about 1.42am. PC Watkins discovers body at 1.44am.
It is barely possible that IF it was Catherine with suspect seen at 1.32am then he had less than 10 mins. to escort her down the passage, across the square, accost her, lay her down & cut her up.
If he had 5 actual minutes with her after he lay her down then he had enough time.
But, it is just possible that he was still with her when PC Harvey walked down the passage, this may have stopped him in his business and as PC Harvey made it to the end of the passage, Jack was still crouched in the corner not knowing if the policeman was coming into the square, or he was making a sly escape across the square towards the St. James passage exit.
Either way, PC Harvey will not have been able to see much in the square due to the overhead lamp at the corner of the passage. He likely came the nearest to seeing Jack that anyone ever came, and the irony of it is, the lamp that was placed there for peoples safety may have been the one thing that saved Jack that night, they may have been face to face (across the square) and Harvey never knew it.
Regards, Jon
PS. there was one other lamp in the square, over to Harvey's right, so Jack was not crossing the square or he would have been seen. He was either still crouched in the corner or he had already made it diagonally across to St. James Passage by the time Harvey got to the end of Church Passage. A third lamp lit the exit into Mitre Street where PC Watkins was on his beat. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 09:18 pm | | Simon and Jon -
Allow me to throw in my groatsworth' of wisdom, after having spent this afternoon transcribing and annotating the October 1 and 2 "Telegraph:"
Morris did indeed state that he could tell the tread of the policeman. Inevitably, however, I wonder if perhaps any noise Kate might have made (and remember, no matter what her footwear, her tread was not the slow steady tramp of a PC) might have simply receded to the back of his mind as "background" noise. Remember, Morris was an ex-policeman. I think he probably had a good idea of the sort of things that went on in the dark recesses of Mitre Square, and unless he heard an overt scuffle or cry, he might have only been attuned to the sound of Watkins' beat every fifteen minutes.
I will admit that this thought is somewhat diluted by Morris' own claim that he hoped the Ripper would show up so he could give him a thrashing, but after almost a month of inactivity, one wonders how seriously he took his own words.
As well, there is also a mention of a Frank Radway who stated he was looking up and down Duke Street from about 12.40 - 12.55 and saw nothing. I haven't yet been able to recheck the sighting of Eddowes by Lawende, Levy and Harris, but if it falls within the timeframe, it rather throws Radway's powers of observation into doubt.
The point of both observations being that sometimes sights and sounds are so usual and expected that we forget them entirely.
CMD |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 09:59 pm | | | Being able to see ones own hands and feet in a dark area and seeing to remove a uterus and a kidney are two different things. What gives here? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 10:23 pm | | Dr Sequira:
"He agreed with the medical evidence already given by Dr Gordon-Brown. The place where the deceased was found was the darkest place in the locality; but their would be plenty of light for the murderer to see to inflict the injuries"
(extract from Manchester Guardian, Oct 12, 1888)
Regards, Jon
(maybe our teacher can understand that) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 05:35 am | | Diana, Simon
To add to Jon's findings. There is a big difference in how people perceive darkness. If you look in the direction of dark places from a lighter area the only thing you will see is darkness. But people that are standing in that darkness, will have attuned eyes at that moment and see very clear. It's like in your bedroom at night, and you are still awake. You still can distinguish many tings, and see what you are doing, only with less colour. Otherwise, dancings would be dangerous places where we all break our legs, stumbling over each other because we could not see what we are doing. But no instead we, can count our money and pay for drinks, we can search into our bags for sigarettes and a lighter, we can recognise people many feet away, ... We need only a little light to have our eye-sight function.
I have seen the effect of viewing for example this weekend on a party. The party-room had many windows to the outside. Actually if we were dancing near the windows and someone passed by outside, you immediately think 'this person can see me and recognise me'. I noticed at a certain moment I forgot something in my car, and went outside myself again. Well I looked, and could see noone standing about, unless they wore a white T-shirt.
If PC-Harvey was looking into a darker area than his from a distance while he wasn't expecting to see someone, he would have noticed nothing. But JtR must have been terrified at that moment thinking he was 'bl**d* well caught'.
I had a nice expereince once relating to blindness. I have informed you I have had 5 years of ergonomics when studying. Once we had visited a blind-project. The project was a boat room in total darkness, with the effect of total blindness. There was a parcours with a guide we had to follow (the guide was a blind person) and we had the aid of a walking stick. The parcours was a recreation of what you can come accross to on the street: cars, endings of walkpaths, bushes, trashcans and paying for a drink in a bar and drinking it. They also explained to us, how much was done to keep it that dark. Any little peeping crack where just a minimum of light could come in, would destroy the whole set-up and purpose of the exercise. It was a lifetime experience, I will never forget the effect of it, and also the effect of only how little light we need to do many things.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 04:44 pm | | Can we consider an outside possibility,that is did the killer choke Eddowes at the mouth of the alley after Lowende had passed.We know he was resourceful and took chancs,and perhaps she may have been reluctant to go into the square which she would have seen was dark.
It would have been only a short carry,and at the alleys entrance,with people still within earshot,she would have been more relaxed and vulnerable to a surprise attack.
With Eddowes dead or unconcious,the killer could have carried her and been careful not to make much sound.
H.M. |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 06:45 am | | Can we consider an outside possibility,that is did the killer choke Eddowes at the mouth of the alley after Lowende had passed.We know he was resourceful and took chancs,and perhaps she may have been reluctant to go into the square which she would have seen was dark.
It would have been only a short carry,and at the alleys entrance,with people still within earshot,she would have been more relaxed and vulnerable to a surprise attack.
With Eddowes dead or unconcious,the killer could have carried her and been careful not to make much sound.
H.M. |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 06:57 am | | Hello Jon & Everybody !
Yes, it has been a while, and thank-you ever-so-much for illucidat......, illum,.... shedding some light on my questions about PC Harvey and the incredible few minutes that was the window of opportunity for the Ripper to have performed his atrocious deeds and escape.
So Church passage wasn't actually covered ? That is very interesting in itself, although now, by the kind actions and thoughtful posts of yourself, Martin and other posters here, I have to accept that probably no way could PC Harvey have had a good view of the murder site. It is still not much short of fantastic, that with the heavy police presence on the streets, and the fact that you had at least 3 PC's in-and-around the vicinity of Mitre Sq. alone, that the Ripper was not just able to escape, but that he actually went ahead and killed out on the streets that night, in the first place.
It must have taken an enormous amount of bravado, insanity, overwhelming rage, or whatever for the Ripper to have done what he did to Eddowes that night. (I don't believe it was a double event). When you consider that the Ripper must have hung around for a while to enable him to even select his victim, he must have been aware of the police presence. He still went into a virtual enclosed area, slew his victim, then disappeared. Martin Fido has indicated one or two observations that were made by Major Smith that might pose further questions, however I believe I shall let this go, and simply accept that the Ripper must have had an incredible amount of nerve, and was the luckiest Serial killer of all time, to have simply walked past the police as though he were a ghost.
Thanks again Martin, Jon and everybody for the excellent information you have given.
Jeff D |
Author: Diana
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 09:29 am | | | Suppose the Ripper was the retired (policeman? security guard? -- I don't remember) who lived in Mitre Square. He is on his way home from (his viewpoint) the fiasco on Berner Street (He got interrupted before he could cut her up.) He meets Eddowes and kills her, and retreats into his own home to clean up, taking a piece of Eddowes apron with him. That would explain how he escaped so fast. A few minutes later an hysterical Bobby is pounding on the door. He puts on his shocked innocent act, helps with the crime scene etc. and as soon as he is able, nips over to Goulston Street to drop the apron. This will cause everyone to think that JtR lives somewhere in Whitechapel and distract attention away from Mitre Square which is what he wants. It explains why it took so long for the apron to show up. The only problem is -- how would you prove it? It ties in with the seaside home too because wasn't that for retired policemen? |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 11:36 am | | Harry,
You're forgetting the police files document, which was later burned in the blitz, which discussed the report made by two Jews standing in the Orange Market, who reported that they saw the Ripper and Eddowes pass by on their way down Church Passage toward the murder site, walking normally.
Diana,
That's quite an idea you've got there, the notion that the Ripper was blind. It would explain a lot. But really, though, could a blind man do what the Ripper did, getting away with it all? But let's keep in mind, a number of full-length books about the case have been based on less!
David |
Author: Diana
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 12:47 pm | | I have been studying special education over the last few months and in reading the chapter on visual impairment I was informed that most "blind" people actually do have a modicum of vision.
As to the other theory I suggested this morning I have thought of a variation. What if the retired policeman happened to glance out his window and caught JTR in the act. Suspecting him to be a fellow Jew he rushes down, drags him away from KE and hides him in his house until all the hue and cry die down. He cleans him up and sends him home and on the way JTR drops the piece of apron. Later the retired policeman moves into the Seaside Home where he later refuses to identify JTR (Kosminsky). |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 12:48 pm | | Hi All !
Thanks to everyone for some interesting discussion. Many things though, still just don't seem to add up. On the one hand we have an insane killer, crazed and filled with blood-lust to the point of ripping up bodies until they are hardly recognisable as human, to someone who is so cold and calculating that he is able to avoid suspicion, when the streets are positively crawling with police. What are the chances of the Ripper walking past noone on his escape home? I would have thought it safe to bet that he walked straight past a cop at sometime, let alone a civilian, and there definitely were people about. The only other alternative is that he lurked in the shadows, hopping from one doorway to the next until the coast was clear, which is pretty unbelievable really, though he probably did duck in a doorway in Goulston street for some reason at sometime.
Was he a crazed Jew, with an insane look in his eyes who would probably have been picked up and questioned by the first police constable he came across? Or was he someone so clean and respectable looking and so coldly calculating, that the police wouldn't give him a second thought. I would certainly have thought that if you had someone like Kosminski hanging around Duke st. or Church passage, eating out of the gutters for example, he would have been picked up by a PC and whisked off the the nearest gaol for questioning quicker than you could say "Leather Apron".
I think the events of Mitre Square hold the best indications of the type of man who was the Ripper. Police were everywhere. He had at the most, a 9/10 minute window of opportunity, which in itself is nothing short of amazing. We even have a reasonable description from Lawende, yet of all the police around, not one of them has said they saw anyone or anything suspicious. The only time he was ever seen, was when he was actually with his victim prior to the deed. I guess the lure of a victim would have been the only thing that would cause him to come out of the shadows and even risk being seen. Where was he all the other times? This guy had a lot of nerve though. It's no wonder that we are still discussing this case 112 year on.
Jeff D |
Author: Diana
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 01:06 pm | | | The retired whatever-he-was was a night watchman at Kearley and Tong Warehouse named George James Morris. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 01:25 pm | | | I'm really rolling with this. If GJM was Jack then it would be entirely in keeping for him to try to deflect suspicion on to a harmless lunatic named Kosminski, and then to coyly refuse to testify against him. If there were a trial too much might come out! |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 05:31 pm | | Diana -
I hate to throw cold water on you, but I think the idea of George Morris being the Ripper or his accompice highly unlikely.
In the first place, Morris was an ex-policeman, and as such would almost certainly not have been Jewish (SPE may correct me, but I do not believe there were any Jewish PCs at the time). As well, your thought that Morris might have recognised the Ripper as a fellow-Jew and rushed out to protect him asks that:
a.) one can distinguish a Jew from a Gentile even while they are crouched over the eviscerated body of a woman (unless your theory postulates that Morris knew who the Ripper was but did not know him as the Ripper until that moment);
b.) Morris' own sense of loyalty to his religion overrode any consideration for the victims, past and future, of the killer.
As well, I don't know that I can credit your thought of Morris himself being the Ripper. We know from various sources that PC Watkins (who discovered Eddowes' body) was occasioned to drop in on Morris from time to time during his beat. If Morris was off at Berner street killing Stride, how would he explain not being at his post? Watkins knew Morris was the night watchman; if the door were locked and there were no answer, or, conversely, if the door were ajar but Morris nowhere to be found, Watkins's suspicions would be raised. Trusting that he could get out, kill and return to Mitre Square before Watkins came by would, I think, cool the ardour of even the most fanatical killer.
And, as well, addressing your thought that Morris might have slipped away to plant the apron at Goulston Street: after Eddowes' body was discovered, Morris stood watch over it as Watkins went to find help. He then returned with several constables and Drs. Sequeira and Gordon Brown were soon in attendance. By that point, the square had been sealed off and no one was allowed entry; I do not think anyone would have been allowed to leave, go to Goulston Street and come back either, even ex-copper Morris.
And now, having been a wet blanket, allow me to apologise for a misleading statement last night. The stableman Radway said that he stood looking up and down Duke Street from 12.40 - 12.55, but this was a good hour before Eddowes was killed (D'OH!), and so of course he would not have seen anything. The "Telegraph" story is worded oddly, however, and it is unclear whether he actually stayed out until 2.00am (which is when he said he went to bed), or only for the times above and then went back to the stable and retired at 2.00.
It was late last night, and I was tired. So sue me.
CMD |
Author: Diana
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 10:06 pm | | | Your quarrel is not with me but with Mcnaughton et al who said the witness who was a policeman who would not implicate a fellow Jew. All I did was plug Morris into the slot. As far as his slipping out, I grant you that he might have to face the possibility of Watkins dropping in when he was supposed to be there and wasn't. Upon finding that Morris' post was deserted would Watkins immediately make the huge leap of saying "Aha! He's not here! He must be Jack the Ripper!" More likely he would assume that Morris had slipped down to the local pub to down a pint or two. Add in the fact that JTR seemed to have the policemen's beats pretty well learned and could work around them. Shortly after the killings end our policeman-witness is found at the Seaside Home indicating he must have developed a disability of some kind after the time he sees things connected to the Eddowes murder. If Morris was that witness and was in fact JTR then that disability would explain the ending of the murders. It also explains how it is that Kosminski turns out to be a dead end. Morris implicated him to protect himself. OK folks we can all go home now. I solved it. I will endeavor not to be insulting and hostile (name calling and such) to those of you with temerity to disagree with my brilliance! (--: |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 06:08 am | | David,
Apart from Lawende and companions,I can find no reference to anyone seeing Edowwes and male at church passage,or to seeing them after the above named.
At the inquest,Levy,who was with Lawende,remarks on the passage being dark.There is no indication,as far as I can read,that anyone saw Edowwes and the killer walking to the spot where she was found.
Regards,H.M. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 07:33 am | | Jeffrey has made a very good point here , in that if we accept that that Jack escaped from Mitre Square on foot he would probably have been seen by a policeman or other witness. Thus if he looked like ' a crazed Jew ' covered in blood then he would have been stopped and questioned. In fact we have no statement from any witness who reported seeing anyone fleeing the scene of the crime. Given that there were five murders in an area which was busy even at night this does seem rather odd.
Yet we know that Jack remained in the area for some considerable time after the Eddowes murder , as the piece of apron was found circa an hour later. Did he go to ground , if so where ?
The question arises , did Jack actually live in the vacinity of Mitre Square / Butcher's Row ? Was he about to enter his house when he saw a lone prostitute wandering the streets and decided opportunistically to have ' one more go ' , after being thwarted during the Stride murder ? If he had wanted to pick up a prostitute for another murder after Stride , why did he not go to the nearer red light areas of Commercial Road and the Whitechapel road ?
As far as I remember , the men in the Orange market simply saw Eddowes and the man talking , as did Lawende. They did not see them walk into Mitre Square. Besides the woman might not have been Eddowes. What if the man seen by Lawende was a lookout positioned to keep people out of the square while another man killed and cut up Eddowes. He may have been propositioned by a drunken prostitute and was using all his charm to get rid of her , while she offered him the chance of a ' quickie ' in the Square. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 07:43 am | | | Which begs the question : if the attack on Stride was orchestrated by two men ( the attacker and Pipeman ) , was the attack on Eddowes also orchestrated by two men ? One to do the cutting , one to listen out for any footsteps and intercept the person approaching. Perhaps Pipeman got his turn with the knife , and the other guy played the lookout. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 11:47 am | | Diana, are you sure you don't mean "Anderson's
witness?" I'm a little foggy this morning, but I
don't believe McNaughton ever had a witness; the
identification at the Seaside Home almost
certainly involved Joseph Lawende, who was not a
policeman. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 01:37 pm | | | I'm going to have to research this. I can't remember who first mentioned the witness. It seems to me that at one point the witness was referred to by a primary source as a city policeman. |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 05:20 pm | | McNaughton said that no-one got a look at the Ripper apart from 'the city policeman at Mitre Square' this has generally been taken as an error and it's assumed he meant Lawende & co....but as the city police records were destroyed in the Blitz, we can't be sure.
Steve S. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 07:26 pm | | Seeing as how we have 66% of the A-Z authors present :-) can you clarify a couple of details.
The Unidentified Witnesses in Mitre Square. (pg 461), 3rd Ed.
A News article quoted from The Daily Telegraph 12 Nov. 1888.
Two persons said to have been in the Orange Market (St. James Place) observed Eddowes at the end of the covered entry to the square, talking to a man aged about 30, with a fair moustache.
This report seems to be a little problematical. Anyone in St. James Place is not going to be able to see down St. James Passage and across the square, to the point where Church passage connects with Mitre Square. This was 1.30am, and being able to see that distance in darkness is highly unlikely, to near impossible.
So, what is wrong with this report?
If the witnesses had BEEN (past tense) in Orange market and then walked down St James passage, the report might have read "had observed Eddowes FROM the end of the covered entry to the square".
Meaning, that the witnesses were at the end of the covered entry, not Eddowes.
St. James Passage was known to be covered, not so Church Passage.
I need to ask was this report seen by either Paul or Martin?
Next question:
page 462, the story continues....
with reference to Lawende, Harris & Levy the book says "Their sighting was from Duke's Place, at a point which would be invisible...."
Duke's Place?..where is that?
Wasnt the Kearly & Tonge warehouse built on the site of Dukes Place?..no longer existing.
Even if Eddowes & client had come down Church Passage and then walked northward towards St. James passage and stood at the covered entry (that would mean less time for Jack to do his work), it is still a stretch to believe that someone standing in St James Place would see down a covered passage and indentify two figures stood at the far end. There was no light at the end of this passage, on entry to the square.
This report appears to be in error, I wonder if anyone has questioned this detail before.
It IS believable that the two witnesses came from the Orange market, walked through the covered passage and when reaching the end of the passage, they saw a couple across the square stood under the corner lamp, at the end of Church Passage. Its a shame the original article no longer exists, but it does go to show that people were around at that time & Jack was seen with the victim.
A lot depends on whether the article said 'at' or 'from', this detail can change the whole meaning of the report. But as the report stands I see it as unexplainable.
Regards, Jon |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 10:01 pm | | Hi Jon
The article in question actually comes from the Daily Telegraph of the 13 Nov. 1888, p. 5, and the relevant portion reads as follows:
“It is noteworthy, however, that there were two descriptions given of the suspected Mitre-square and Hanbury-street murderers, which agree in some respects with that furnished by the witness Cox of the man seen in Kelly’s company on Thursday night. About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre-square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury-street murder, a suspicious looking man entered a public-house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby-genteel appearance and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the Orange Market and closely observed the man. The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. On the other hand the Metropolitan authorities are inclined to attach significance to it.”
Hope this helps
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 10:30 pm | | Alex to the rescue, thankyou my good man.
So it is not a first person report, pity it was not reported verbatim.
Thankyou Alex, at least it helps.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 11:25 pm | | I hate afterthoughts.......
The description mentioned in the above article is remarkably similar to the description published by the City police following the interview with Lawende. One wonders if the press are getting their sources confused, the article was wrote 6 weeks after the events.
But, lets consider for a moment that Catherine & suspect actually did enter Mitre Square from St. James Place. Then here we have two men in St. James Place admitting to seeing a man & a woman at the other end of St James passage.
Then if this is the case, Lawende's sighting was of another couple entirely. And in support of this we have a nightwatchman (Blenkinsop) at the fire station in the Place, who said he was asked by a stranger "did you see a man & a woman pass by here?".
But, against this, the same watchman never mentioned seeing two other strangers, the witnesses who claimed to be in the same St. James Place.
Hmm, murkier & murkier..... |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 07:28 am | | Hello All !
Near to the murder site, there were a few empty premesis, and I believe a backyard. I wonder if the killer might have ducked into the backyard or broke into an empty house when he first heard the approaching footsteps of PC Harvey. If he remained there until a time after PC Watkins had discovered the body, this could explain the time-lapse to the finding of the Apron in Ghoulston Street.
Maybe DR's observations of bottlenecks a while back have a certain significance. The Ripper, cornered in Mitre Square, hides in the backyard or in one of the empty houses until he can escape (possibly) via a front door into Duke St. He didn't pass down Church passage or St. James Place, risking walking past a PC at all. The killer may have lain low, and even watched or heard all the commotion from a window overlooking the murder site. Would this ever be considered a valid reason as to why the apron wasn't dropped and noticed until an hour later.
I am trying to convince myself that the reference to the city PC was a mistake. I wonder though, why so many things in Macnaughtens' memoranda, Swanson's and Andersons comments are questioned in some quarters and accepted virtually verbatim in others, yet the statement referring to 'the City PC who was the only person to have seen the killer' is dismissed out of hand and totally ruled out by virtually everyone. With the real, factual details we have, we can place a City PC within 50' of the murder site, within a few minutes of the murder itself, which is something we cannot do for just about any other witness or suspect, yet it is never believed that there was a city PC who saw the killer by anyone. I find this rather strange.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 01:06 pm | | Hi Jeff
The rules for Met police were stated to be that if a policeman finds a body he must stay with it until help arrives. Whether this was also a City police policy I am not sure.
I think Jack would be pushing it if he decided to lay low within a few feet of the crime, to wait for a opportune moment to flee, or mingle with a crowd. Police were arriving on a continuous basis. Once the body was discovered the square got busier & busier. And he still had the incriminating kidney & uterus with him. I cant think of a reasonable excuse for Jack to use, should he be searched, in view of what was in his pockets :-)
I think the whole area of the square would have been systematically searched, Watkins would have known which houses were empty and which were not, as a matter of his duty. I hope any signs of forced entry would have been investigated, but regardless the area would surely have been searched.
Yes, the City PC is problematical, much easier to question Mac's memory than try to explain the remark.
I have not read this 'bottleneck' that has been refered to.....I'll take a look back in the archives, see if I can find it.
With regard to the lost hour.....
There are a few thoughts on this posted under 'Dissertations' on the main menu, ...entitled "A piece of apron, some chalk graffiti and a lost hour"
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 08:43 pm | | | What if the city pc was the retired Morris? What if he was Jack? |
Author: sam
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 10:01 pm | | Could any one please tell me why Catherines left breast looks like it has a flat. Sure she has inverted nipples but her left breast looks as though it has been cut out from the inside yet no one seems to be that worried about it.
Sam |
Author: Lisa Muir
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 10:03 am | | Eddowes was a 46 yr. old woman with small breasts.
I believe gravity explains what Sam seems to be at a loss to explain/understand. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 01:20 pm | | Eeeek! I think malnourishment and misfortune must have even more to do with it than gravity, speaking from a personal point of view. (I'm hoping gravity will be kind when it finally arrives on my doorstep!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Friday, 17 November 2000 - 06:41 pm | | | I've told this to Sam before in the old Chat Room - none of the women in that area at that time had a penny to their names; therefore they were all flat busted. |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 17 November 2000 - 10:58 pm | | Caz,
Gravity doesn't know your name.
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 10:50 am | | Thanks David - you've made my weekend! 
Had to get that off my chest.
Love,
Caz |
Author: sam
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 07:26 pm | | Hi guys what I mean is that in the photo I see of her her left breast looks like it has been caved in. I just think that is strange cause in that photo Cathy is standing up.
Thanks sam |
|
|
|
|
