|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 21, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols:
Archive through March 21, 2000
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 09:15 am |        | | Here is a mystery to solve : Polly Nichols was last sighted at the corner of Whitechapel high street and Osborn Street by Ellen Holland , at 2.30 am on 31st August 1888. It would have taken her about 25 minutes to have walked to Buck's Row where her body was found , but the corpse was not actually discovered until 3.40am. Police patrols ascertained the body was not in Bucks Row at 3.15am. So where was Polly Nichols between 2.30am and 3.40 am , assuming she had just been killed when Charles Cross found her ? The area around Buck's Row was well patrolled. Further , if we assume Polly made her way to Buck's Row via the Whitechapel Road then this was well lit and would have been busy with at least some people. Why was Polly not seen ? |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 04:04 am | | Simon,
I don't think there is any mystery.As I have written before ,Nicholls and Chapman were only human and needs rests like all of us.Initially looking for custom and finding none,they would still need a place to rest.
Remember Chapman left at about 1.45 at least 3 hours before being killed.She was not a person in the best of health.She would need to keep to the more busy streets and make herself prominent if she were to attract custom.To not be seen or not get tired is asking a bit too much.
A better question to ask is how the ripper found them,and where.
They set out searching for a customer,he set out searching for a victim.He found what he wanted ,they didn't.So who approached who?.
H.M. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 04:26 am | | | In Nicholl's case , I suspect she would have been picked up on the Whitechapel Road , perhaps somewhere near the London Hospital. It would seem logical then that the pair retired to the backstreets to do business and that was when the murder took place. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 03:40 am | | A question to ponder.Who choose the locations of the killings.It is generally considered,at least in the murders of Nicholls,Chapman and Eddowes,that the victims offering sex,chose the places.
Could it have been the killer instead who suggested they go to the sites,and that the reason was not neccessarily for sexual reasons.
Incidentally I do believe that Tabram was the first victim.
H.M. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 07:36 am | | | If Polly was drunk she might not have been walking at a normal pace. |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 10:42 pm | | I found evidence indicating the murderer chose all the murder sites post-Polly. Really. Can some erstwhile Ripperologist guess what it is?
It's right there in the evidence, folks.
David |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 01:47 pm | | | The only thing I can think of is the constant presence of a gate or door nearby and that doesn't include Mitre Square. Chapman: Door to the passageway in the house. Stride: Gate to Dutfield's yard. Eddowes: I strike out here. Kelly: Door to small room. Wasn't there some kind of door or gate at Buck's row, too? Could mean nothing. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 19 March 2000 - 02:35 pm | | Diana,
Good enough for half a cigar. Let's give a little more time for others to cogitate this...
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 05:55 am | | | Eddowes was found by a gate which led to a passage from Mitre Square , in the ' Police News ' picture there is also an open doorway near the body. Nichol's body was found by the gate of a stableyard in Buck's row. But what does this mean David ? It isn't a reference to those Hogarth pictures again is it ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 08:03 am | | Harry , I have found evidence that the lack of witnesses to Chapman's movements on the night of her death WAS considered mysterious. From ' The Times ' , 11th September 1888 : " The woman Chapman was known in appearance to the policeman on the night beats in the neighbourhood , but none of those who were on duty between 12 and 6 on Saturday morning recollect having seeing her. " ( from Rumbelow Chapter 7 , page 157 ). Now this is very strange as Annie left the lodging house with the express intention of gaining money for a bed : yet she was not seen on her beat all night. She simply vanished into thin air apparently. It is possible she sat down for a rest , but she could have simply sat on the pavement of a major street , next to a coffee stall. All prostitutes are vulnerable to attack from their clients , thus I don't think Annie would be a woman who would take unnecessary risks if she had to : she wouldn't go to rest on her own in some dark ,lonely place while a evil murderer was on the loose. She wouldn't have to. When she went to seek her business , she would have been on her beat on the major streets and she would have been seen by someone - instead no-one , not even the constables who knew her well , saw her between 2am and possibly 5am/5.30am. Why not? The same is true of Polly I expect , we have no reports of her being seen by anyone between 2.30 and 3.40 am. Yet if she was in the region of the Whitechapel road there would have been many people who might have spotted her and those that knew her casually from her beat as well. But she too was not seen. So Harry we do still have a mystery I am afraid ! Does anyone else have any suggestions what might have happened to the women in the missing hours before their deaths ? |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 01:31 pm | | It seems reasonable to argue that (1) the Ripper and not primarily the victim was choosing the murder sites post-Nichols, and therefore, that (2) the same person killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, because:
(1) based on the condition of Nichols' body, the Ripper was apparently attempting to eviscerate her in Buck's Row when he noticed someone approaching and had to run away, since the mutilations on her had only begun, and
(2) therefore he learned by this experience that he had to plan somehow to reduce the chance that he'd be interrupted before he could remove the uterus in future, and
(3) this is shown by every murder site after Nichols featuring an architectural bottleneck.
The Chapman site required the murderer and victim to walk through the hallway at 29 Hanbury Street to get to the back yard, where the murder took place. The hallway is the bottleneck, the back yard the bottle body. The murderer was overheard on the street asking Annie "Will you?" This apparently meant, "Will you accompany me into the back yard of this house?"
The Stride site was Dutfield's Alley, the bottleneck, which opened into Dutfield's Yard, the bottle body.
The Eddowes bottle body was Mitre Square, the bottleneck was Church Passage.
The Kelly bottle body was Miller's Court, specifically her room in the court, the bottleneck was the narrow passage out of Dorsett Street through which murderer and victim had to walk to access Miller's Court.
Now, there were numerous architectural bottlenecks in Whitechapel, I agree, what with the many nameless alleys, twists, turns, and yards. But remember, the Nichols murder took place on the open street, no bottle structure involved, and he apparently narrowly avoided being caught in that act, missing his chance to get the uterus. Each time after that, a bottleneck applies. Each time, the murderer and victim pass into or through a bottleneck structure, and then the murder takes place. What are the odds against this coincidence happening by itself?
The bottleneck would serve to solve the problem of Buck's Row, in that it cuts down traffic flow from the murder scene, thereby reduces the chance of being interrupted, and still offers direct access to the street as an escape route.
We DON'T see the murderer killing behind dustbins, in houses or warehouses, in carriages, under bridge abutments, in cellars or coal bins, or elsewhere. We DO see him, and post-Nichols only, killing always in, or after having passed through architectural bottlenecks. Therefore, it would seem the same person killed the canonical five, and, post-Nichols, he determined the murder sites.
P.S. I've posted recently that "Jack the Ripper killed only two," as Viper reminded us. That meant he killed two people AS Jack the Ripper.
copyright David M. Radka, 2000 |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 06:29 pm | | With regard to Mr Radka's post I have some questions.
(1) How can we assume anything in this case then go on to hypothesise on that assumption?
(2) If he was after the uterus why did he take Kelly's heart and leave the uterus on the bed?
(3) How can "every murder site after Nichols" feature "an architectural bottleneck" when the rear yard of 29 Hanbury Street had an easily scaled fence should anyone have approached through the house and Mitre Square had three exits (Mitre Street, St James's Passage and Church Passage)?
(4) How can we say that the question "Will you?" meant "Will you accompany me into the back yard of this house?" when it was more likely to have been a request for sex?
(5) What is 'Dutfield's Alley'? I have never heard of this before.
(6) How could Dutfield's Yard be reasoned to "cut down traffic flow from the murder scene" when it was unusually busy with club members etc. coming and going (see evidence)?
(7) Likewise Miller's Court, in and out of which people were passing all night long (see evidence)?
(8) How can such false reasoning lead to the bold claim that "it would seem the same person killed the canonical five, and, post Nichols, he determined the murder sites."?
And last but not least,
(9) With such flawed reasoning how can Mr Radka expect anyone to believe he has solved the case? |
Author: Diana
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 07:44 pm | | | Aha! a door or gate at every site! Now what can it mean? (if anything) |
Author: Diana
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 07:49 pm | | | How about a Freudian explanation of David's bottlenecks. He relives the birth experience, accompanied by the prostitute and then he kills her. (This is getting zany. He was a twin? He hated his twin?) I can just imagine what our old friend Anon will do with this! |
Author: Diana
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 09:39 pm | | | I'm going to start a new thread under Modern Musings. I think I'll call it Passageways and Doors. This theme applies to all the killings, not just Polly. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 04:21 am | | In reply to Ivor Q.,
There was no Comings and goings to Dutfields yard or Millers court all night long.No more than two persons were known to have entered or left each location after midnight,excluding victim and killer.Without knowledge of,we must assume certain things happened.
You assume sex as a reason for entering the murder sites,and it is a reasonable assumption.
There may have been other reasons.
The killer did select the sites for the killings.That is self evident.
All sites are bottlenecks to the effect that all exits could have been blocked off.Unlikely i'll agree,but under certain conditions feasible.
He had already taken a uterus from a previous victim.
'Willyou',could have meant anything.It is not something that needs pursuing. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 05:16 am | | | At least we have something of David's theory now but I have two complaints about it. Firstly , why did the killer kill Nichols in the middle of a street in the first place , surely the reasoning that he should kill his victim in a concealed place would have come to him BEFORE the Buck's Row murder. How dumb do you expect us to believe this guy was , surely not the cunning Jack we have come to know and love ? Secondly , Mitre Square is not a bottleneck - it had 3 exits. Even if the murderer was unaware of the terrain , he could not have failed to miss the 25 ft wide entrance into Mitre Street now , could he ? This is what is known as ' fudging ' it David , bending the facts ( Church Passage = Mitre Square ) to suit your theory. This is something I am trying to avoid as well , so I sympathise. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 08:40 am | | I for one am glad that David Radka, following months of hints, has started finally to leak details of his ‘solution’ and thank him for it. These boards have been badly in need of some new discussion topics lately.
At first sight, Mr. Radka’s comments seem to raise more questions that they answer. Some of them were indeed asked by Ivor Q above. Generally, I would concur with the points that he or she makes, though I cannot agree that the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street had an easily scaled fence, given that it was 5’6” high and in a poor state of repair. (Therefore it may or may not have taken a man’s weight, was probably apt to sway if an attempt was made to climb it and any such action would be likely to generate a lot of noise).
What the Hanbury Street back garden, Dutfield’s Yard, Mitre Square and Miller’s Court all had in common is that they were away from the streets. But this is what we would expect of a transaction between a prostitute and a punter. That Polly Nichols took our man to a residential street – albeit a quiet one at that time of the morning – and didn’t take her client into the stable yard or any of the other gateways is surely an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. A place such as a court, alley or yard, described by David as an ‘architectural bottleneck’, would be the normal place to conduct sex simply because it was off-street. Few people had any reason to go there and the chance of disturbance was thus reduced.
As to whether the choice of location was made by the women or by the Ripper, I think this is open to interpretation. It is very hard to see how David can be so certain of his conclusions.
To take the most clear-cut instance first, Mary Jane Kelly had her own room. Provided she picked Jack up close to home, she didn’t need to find some filthy alleyway. In securing her client Kelly probably mentioned “my place” because it was a distinct plus-point to her; many of the local women had nowhere to take their customers at 2 a.m. or later. With the heat on the street from the police and vigilantes, that would have suited JTR well. He hadn’t killed for forty days, so was he looking for a victim with a secluded room by that time?
The Chapman inquest was notable for the difference in testimony by the lessee of no. 29, Amelia Richardson, and that of her son John. Amelia admitted only to the presence of one stranger on the stairs, whereas John said that he’d cleared men and women out several times. His evidence sounds the more plausible, his mother being understandably defensive about the alleged goings on at her house. If it is true that some of the local prostitutes knew about the unlocked street door and took their clients through, it is far more likely that Annie Chapman (who only lodged about 1,000 feet away) knew about the yard than JTR. Consequently she is more likely to have suggested its use.
Mitre Square is more problematic. As has been pointed out there were three entrances to it, so it wasn’t a bottleneck. Either party might have known that it represented a secluded place. Which leaves us with Dutfield’s Yard…
The fact that Dutfield’s Yard was chosen on a night when the International Working Men’s Education Club was holding a meeting in the adjoining building, and where access to said building was sometimes made from the side entrance, might suggest that it was the killer who chose it. A prostitute who worked the area was far more likely to know the hazardous nature of the location. On the other hand there are sufficient sightings of a woman resembling Liz Stride in the area that night to suggest that she may have been using it or another yard in the vicinity to service clients. Berner Street and the parallel roads either side contained a number of courts. (You can see some of them on the map at:- http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore/maps/detail_berner.htm ).
What then is the truth? Well perhaps the answer lies in the inquest testimony again. The man who Schwartz saw attack Stride walked down Berner Street and assaulted her more or less where she stood. If he were also the killer, as many have assumed, then it doesn’t look like there was any discussion at all about the details of a transaction. If he wasn’t the killer, then a battered and bruised Stride was probably still nursing her wounds in or around Dutfield’s when the real murderer arrived.
Regards, V. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 08:53 am | | | Sadly then David , we are left with the conclusion that the murder sites were chosen because they were secluded , not because they were bottle necks. This is unfortunately no great revelation. It does show the need for you to expose your theory to debate and criticism before you publish it however as even the best of us can sometimes run away with ourselves. Hopefully , the next installment of your theory will be arriving soon then : who are your suspects ? Joe Barnett and his brothers ? Kosminski and his alleged brother ? Or someone entirely different altogether ? |
Author: Jeffrey
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:01 am | | Hello All !
I think David has made some excellent observations in the post on "Bottlenecks" and architecturally the murder locations do appear to have certain similarities. One interesting aspect, would be that although the killer felt he wouldn't be suddenly and unexpectedly approached from behind and be caught red-handed, he did only give himself one form of egress. Unless he felt he could have fled over the fence from 29 Hanbury Street for example, he did take enormous risks of possible capture by choosing these sites. Please don't correct me on Mitre Sq.
In looking at the murder sites, I have simply felt that they were located near to a wall or fence, and this was simply to indicate preparation for the common sexual act, with the woman using the wall or fence to steady herself. I hadn't really considered the greater picture however, and do feel that D might have a point in there somewhere. I don't consider Stride as being a victim myself, though even Dutfield's yard does present a similar type of surrounding. Here though, it seems as though the killer tried at first to pull the victim out into the street, not back into the yard. I think Kidney was a very lucky man, there appears to be a considerable amount of circumstancial evidence which could indicate him being involved someway in this one. (IMHO)
SK-Profiling can indicate a murderer of this kind (especially when you consider the very small area in which the killer operated), knew his hunting ground extremely well. I have stated on these boards before that I believe the killer knew every nook and cranny in the area that he felt comfortable in. He doesn't appear to have ever wanted to travel too far abroad to commit his crimes, and I think this is extremely pertinent to the type of man who was the killer. These men pay an enormous amount of attention to their surroundings, the people and their routines, and I would certainly think he knew of the police activities in the area.
It really is an incredible fact when you do consider the small area in which the crimes were committed. There were obviously many places the prostitutes could engage in their profession, the killer would have known of many of these I'm sure, while he allowed the victim to think they were leading him to a secluded place. We appear to be focussing even more on a local man who had a good understanding of the area. This could even be supported by the fact that he didn't operate in the month of October, possibly thinking that the heavy police presence, the bringing in of bloodhounds and such could have easily tracked him to his lair. Good points David !
Cheers
Jeff D |
|
|
|
|
