Author: David Radka
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 10:30 pm |        |
Does anybody know the dates when the respective rewards offered in the case were withdrawn? Thank you.
David |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:52 pm | |
| what was the amount offered |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:52 pm | |
hi david,
i have no idea but p'haps you can help me by telling me when they were first offered
jennifer |
Author: Jon
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 06:12 pm | |
When you read the news articles you become aware that there were several offers of rewards from a variety of sources.
To which do you refer, David?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 21 June 2002 - 01:33 pm | |
Does anyone know just how far was Buck's Row from the two fires?
If the fireman would have traversed BR enroute to the fire?
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 09:58 am | |
In regards to the topography of Buck's Row murder site, does anyone know if it is flat and level or does it have an incline?
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 10:07 am | |
Hi Scott.
I guess it depends on what you accept as level.
A surveyor might say there are no level streets in the East end, that they all inclined to some degree one way or another. When I was there in '72 (before in was sabotaged) I think it was basically level, as level as could be expected. You certainly did not walk up any measurable incline to Brady St. or Bakers Row.
I'm also sure the above was of no help to you at all. 
Regards, Jon
(Viper or Ivor may have some input here)
P.S. if you only mean the 'murder spot' (gateway) then I think the cobbles had a slight incline towards the road (gutter), but only very slight. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 10:37 am | |
The street itself would be pretty flat, though there would be a camber on the road so that water drained towards the gutters.
If I've read this map correctly (always a big if), at the western end Buck's Row was 44 feet above sea level. It rose to 45 ft. asl. opposite the end of Court Street and fell off so that at the extreme eastern end (Brady Street) it was only 39 ft. asl.
The entire road was about 370 yards long. From Court Street to Brady Street was approx 750 ft. The average gradient from Court Street to Brady Street was therefore around 1 in 125. From the murder site to Brady Street was about 400 ft. My guess is therefore that the murder site would be 42-43 ft. asl. All these street length distances are approximate and could easily be 20 or 30 feet out.
Regards, V. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 01:32 pm | |
Jon and Viper thanks.
Peace
Scott |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 09:32 pm | |
| I know there was a reward offered but according to Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner in "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" The Home Secretary refused at least through Annie Chapman's murder to authorize a government reward. The view was it was of more harm than the good that would accrue. However, I believe a reward was offered by some Whitechapel merchants possibly Mr. Lusk was involved. I'm a bit sketchy on that part just now. Kindest regards, neil |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 04:04 am | |
Twenty-four links telling you all you need to know about Rewards - and all right here at the Casebook.
Regards, V. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 04:58 pm | |
It has occurred to me, that the fence height at 29 Hanbury St. may be documented. Here in the US, our property is taxed. The property records are maintained by the Tax Assessor Office and the tax records are kept by the tax commissioner Office. The Tax Assessor assesses the value of the property and the tax commissioner collects the taxes and maintains detailed records on the chain of ownership according to who pays the taxes.
The Tax Assessor assesses the value by taking into account everything on the property. I have seen old tax records here dating back to the 18th Century. These records are meticulous and detail every building, tree, hill and FENCE on the property.
I do not know English law, but if you guys operate the same way, then buried in an archive somewhere in London, should be a tax record for the property at 29 Hanbury St, and that record may include the dimensions of the fence. Keep in mind, the fence may actually belong to the owner of 31 Hanbury St. If so, the records for 29 Hanbury may not reflect the fence.
If you guys operate this way also, and if these records exist and they are available to the public, then this would require a lot of research time. If anyone is willing to look into this, then please let me know.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 07:00 pm | |
Scott
The height of the palings in the yard at 29 hanbury St is mentioned as being 5 feet 6 inches
Hope this helps
Chris S |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:51 pm | |
Thanks Chris,
I need as accurate a measurement as possible.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 06:13 am | |
In the photograph of the fence in Daniel Farsons book, the battens of the fence that the boards of the fence are attached to are facing inwards to No 29, I'd say this means No 29 was responsible for the fence.
Rick. |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 07:09 am | |
Scott
having reread your point about No 31 being possibly responsible for the fence, I think this is unlikely. I think No 31 would have been the other side of the house away from the murder site. Im basing this on the evidence of Albert Cadoche (Cadosch) who lived at No 27 and heard the sound of something (or someone) falling against the fence
Regards
Chris |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 05:48 pm | |
Scott,
From The Star of 8th September:-
"The yard is a small one, square in shape, with a 4ft. fence on either side. The fence is old and rotten."
From The Times of 11th September:-
"Between the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, and the next house there was a fence about 5ft. high."
From the East London Advertiser of 15th September:-
"The yard is about five or six yards square, and is separated from the next houses on both sides by wooden fences about 5ft. 6in.
From the Daily Telegraph of 20th September:-
"The Foreman [to A. Cadosch]: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high."
From Inspector Swanson's report of 19th October:-
"5.25 a.m. 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch of 27 Hanbury Street, (next door) had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27, separated only by a wooden fence about 5 feet high..."
Sources are therefore at variance over the precise height of the fence. Take your pick from these, but it was probably in the range between 5 ft. and 5 ft. 6ins.
The fence in question ran between 27 and 29 Hanbury Street.
Regards, V. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 05:12 pm | |
Thanks to everyone for their input,
I just feel that there must be a more accurate height measurement out there somewhere.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 01:14 pm | |
Hi, Scott:
I am not sure that anyone answered your initial queries--
Does anyone know just how far was Buck's Row from the two fires?
If the firemen would have traversed Buck's Row en route to the fire?
Viper can address these queries more directly. However, I believe Buck's Row would have been a mile or so from the fires, which occurred on the docks many blocks to the south.
Since Buck's Row was more or less an east-west side thoroughfare paralleling Whitechapel Road, I don't believe any fire equipment would have happened to travel down that road. They would have used the main East End streets to reach the docks.
The docks undoubtedly had fire equipment near at hand for just such docks fires although in big blazes such as these as is the way of such disasters, outside fire equipment would have responded as well. We do in fact know from the East London Advertiser of September 1 that the Whitechapel fire station responded soon after the fire at Shadwell Dry Dock was first noticed, around 9:00 pm on Thursday evening, many hours before before Polly Nichols' early morning murder.
I think it could be a working hypothesis that Jack might have set the fires as a distraction although there seems no precedent from the other crimes to think so, and the fact that fires began so many hours before the murder of Nichols could be an argument that there existed no connection between the events.
Best regards
Chris George |
