|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Detective Inspector Stephen White:
Archive through 09 April 2002
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 02:29 am |        | While some may dismiss the story of Sergeant 'Steve' White as first discovered and reported by Donald Rumbelow, there are compelling reasons to seriously reconsider this chilling account of a face-to-face encounter with Jack The Ripper.
Chanced upon an interesting little book in a used bookstore called "40 Years of Scotland Yard". The book is the memoir of Frederick Porter Wensley, former Chief Constable, Criminal Investigation Unit, New Scotland Yard, who began his career as a constable with the Metropolitan Police patrolling Lambeth in 1888. He has some interesting memories about the murders in Whitechapel.
In response to these shocking murders the Met had constables patrolling in pairs. Some constables applied rubber to their shoes: "To our clumsy regulation boots we nailed strips of rubber, usually bits of old bicycle tires, and so insured some measure of silence when walking."
He further mentions an insane man with a walking cane/sword who Wensley is forced to arrest during this time period, the Francis Coles murder, and the murder of Constable Ernest Thompson who was stabbed by a young man named Abrahams. Thompson, who tragically bled to death, had intervened when Abrahams was observed "forcing his attentions on some young women at the stall". Abrahams was convicted of manslaughter and died in prison. These recollections could possibly add three more suspects to the Ripper case.
Of particular interest, Wensley briefly mentions Steven White in the book, having to do with the William Seaman murder case, April 1896. Sir Melville Macnaghten is chief constable of CID at this time.
"My immediate chief, Stephen White, the local detective inspector, had a look at him and was able to recount some fragments of his history, which were amplified by a glance at the records."
Wensley also talks about patrolling Whitechapel Road. All of these observations add credibility to the story reported by 'Steve' White, even though Wensley is apparently unaware of White's involvement with the Ripper investigation for he makes no mention of it in the book.
Wensley confirms the Met was using officers in pairs, as mentioned in White's account. Police officers were attaching rubber soles on their shoes, confirming that JTR certainly could have done the same. Wensley mentions the Met was patrolling the Whitechapel Road area. All three of these points add support to White's story.
All available manpower was applied to the Ripper manhunt. It's possible Met constables were made available to the City police to support increased stakeout coverage or there was some understanding the Met could overlap boundaries with the City. There was a known stake out of a suspect who lived in Aldgate but worked elsewhere. All of this information lends credence to White's story.
The fact there were three ways to access Mitre Square: the main entrance from Mitre Street, Church Passage, and St. James Passage, creates some questions. If Mitre Square was the object of White's stake out, it would require a minimum of three men to cover these three entries. White mentions he was taking a report from two men he was supervising. Was Sergeant White himself involved as the third lookout?
If White's two-man team was assigned the Mitre Street entrance, then other teams would need to cover Duke Street and St. James Place. If so, that is a lot of manpower devoted to surrounding Mitre Square. The manpower and time allocated to this location indicates the police had some compelling reason to focus on this particular cul-de-sac.
White's story leaves much to be desired in terms of specifics, but that certainly doesn't mean it never happened.
As to White's veracity one must weigh the fact he had a long career with promotion to detective inspector, and for that reason can assume he was a capable and reputable police officer. As to memory, how could any policeman forget the horrible Whitechapel murders or his own participation in the case?
Would not that experience make an indelible impression on the memory of any person involved in law enforcement? Upon retirement White had time to reflect upon his career and it would be surprising indeed if the unsolved Ripper case was not forever etched in Detective White's memory.
If the blanks can be filled in to this story of a possible encounter with a prime suspect, then Stephen White would become the star witness in the baffling case of Jack the Ripper.
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:44 pm | | Further interesting information pertaining to the
Sergeant Steve White story can be found on the Message Boards: Police Officials, Fixed Point Duty. There is a very informative explanation by Viper of the history, jurisdiction, organization and districts of the London police departments. One pertinent detail from this information indicates that a part of Aldgate falls within the area patrolled by H Division of the Metropolitan PD. Mitre Square is less than a block from Aldgate.
There was a suspect already under surveillance who lived in Aldgate. White's team could have been part of this stake out which may have required overlapping into Mitre Street. Could be White's team was coordinating with the City PD in a stake out of Mitre Street, maybe a joint operation inclusive of a two or three street area.
Robeer |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 03:28 am | | Robeer,
Neither Mitre Square nor any of the streets bordering it were on the cusp of the Met's area. All fell clearly within the jurisdiction of the City of London Police. Therefore the scenario you raise above would appear to be unlikely.
For the record, I would agree with other commentators that if the Stephen White story has any basis of truth at all, it is far more likely to apply to Castle Alley than to Mitre Square.
Regards, V. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 03:18 am | | Dear Everyone,
Am I write in thinking that the article mentioned above which appeared in 'The Peoples Journal' 27th September 1919, wasn't written by Steven White but contributed by an unknown person 'in memory of Stephen White'. In other words there is nothing to actually connect this article with Stephen White.
If you study the article it is obvious it is an amalgam of several incidents cobbled together.
There are so many holes in it it's difficult to know where to start, but if you take the 'cul de sac' aspect the whole thing soon falls apart. It is vital to the story that the area is a cul de sac otherwise there would be no proof that the mysterious stranger is the killer - he might just be a harmless passer by who has entered the area by another entrance. Cut it any way you like Mitre Square is not a cul de sac - in fact out of all the murder scenes it is difficult to find one less like.
However if you take the relevant points of the story: Detective White, two other detectives, cold night, cul de sac and blood running in the gutter it would appear to be a very loose account of the Stride murder.
In my opinion the whole story is fiction, cobbled together using bits and pieces from other cases, and submitted by someone who is trying to get his own theories on the type of man who comitted these crimes accepted. Anyone like to guess that if this mystery is ever solved we will see the inky fingerprints of Forbes Winslow on the story?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 03:20 am | | ERROR
AM i WRITE???? No I'm rong! Please cut and paste following word into article to maintain integrity ( and spare my blushes)
right
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 07:03 am | | Hi Bob,
I've just made a point on the Non-Jack Letters board which may interest you, in lite of your little faux pas here, on 'the write stuff', which we all do okasianly! 
No knead to blush at all, at all...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 07:05 am | | Or should that read 'the red [read] stuff'?
(Groan) |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 02:20 pm | | Great minds think alike Bob ! Check out my postings of yesterday under ' Witness Reliability ' - I believe that what the article is describing IS the Stride murder !
"...it is obvious it is an amalgam of several incidents cobbled together" - I don't see this myself , I believe the account refers to the Stride murder and the Stride murder only : I hope I have provided some good suggestions as to why that is.
Simon |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 02:18 pm | | Viper,
Read somewhere that the eastern side of Duke street is where the wall used to be surrounding Old London Town. Is this a boundary of the City? Would the intersection of Duke Street and Aldgate be a possible boundary? What part of Aldgate is Metro and what part is City?
If the Met PD had a suspect under surveillance who worked in their 'patch', but lived in the City could they keep 24 hour watch on him? That might require Met PD to overlap into City territory to maintain non stop surveillance.
Robeer |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 04:00 am | | Robeer,
You are quite right that the old City wall crossed Aldgate and ran along the eastern edge of what became Duke Street. The wall was built by the Romans around 200AD, but had long since ceased to be the border of the City of London. In fact a whole eastern strip (known as the Portsoken Ward) had been added to the City by about 980. Therefore the line of the (demolished) wall was of no consequence as a police boundary.
Under another discussion topic I have been trying to ascertain exactly where the boundary did run with Martin Fido's help. To answer your question as best I can for the moment, the whole of the east-west thoroughfare known as Aldgate and as Aldgate High Street fell within the City. Running north of this road the border ran up Middlesex Street. To the south it either ran straight down Mansell Street, or possibly wound its way through the area between Mansell St. and Minories (see the other topic). Hope this helps.
You seem to be absolutely intent on using the White story to prove something about Mitre Square. What is it? As a number of people have now commented, the story looks distinctly unreliable. If it has any truth in it at all the details seem to be a hybrid of different events and it doesn't match well with the details of any one murder. Having re-read the appropriate section of Donald Rumbelow's book, I really cannot agree with his conclusion that the story fits best with Mitre Square. In fact I don't see it matching with Mitre Square at all. It contains elements of both the Castle Alley and Berner Street murders, and one wonders if the story was cobbled together using the reminiscences of more than one police officer.
Regards, V. |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 05:51 am | | Viper,
I agree with everything you say. The White story as a whole doesn't fit any JTR location. The paradox is that parts of it fit three locations.
The White story is a mystery unto itself. Why was it written at all? And why the timing? Why did it appear so soon after Whites' death? The author remained anonymous so the motivation was not fame and fortune. What was the motive and what did the author hope to gain by telling this story? It did not solve the case or even implicate a specific suspect.
If White himself had something to do with the publication of this story it is obvious he preferred publication after his death. Why? If he is already dead he would not enjoy any celebrity attention. So we can rule out money and notoriety as motives. If White did give permission to publish this story posthumous, it's as if he was seeking redemption or justification for letting JTR walk away that night. I have studied the story in detail, segmented it into information components, and subjected those components to some basic statistical analysis. Results point to Berner Street, as Simon Owen has suggested. What is weird is the percentage of details that fit Mitre Square.
It's obvious the story has been cobbled together or the details were garbled over time. That doesn't mean this face to face contact with JTR and White never happened. Law enforcement officials, attorneys, and other interviewers know from experience that few witnesses ever get all the details right. As time goes by further details fade from memory but none of this means those witnesses invented the circumstances. Consider the following report:
"The blimp Hinterland exploded in Lakeview, New York as it was attempting to take off on this date in 1927. There were no survivors."
Not one detail in this statement is accurate, so we are forced to conclude the event never happened or must be cobbled together from several incidents or is entirely a fiction for who knows what reason, right?
Here is the correct version:
"The dirigible Hindenburg was engulfed in flames in Lakehurst, New Jersey as it was attempting to land on this date in 1937. There were only a few survivors."
But you already figured this out, didn't you? Why did you suspect the Hindenburg immediately upon reading the entirely inaccurate version? In spite of the garbled facts you suspected something happened. You had a hunch even with flawed info to work with. Detectives must do this everyday if they are to solve any case. Witnesses are not perfect, even career police officers.
What does the White story get right? First, the weather. It was very cold that night and it was a damp cold. The Eddowes and Stride murders took place within enclosures that can be described as alleys or cul-de-sacs. Constables were working stakeouts in pairs. Rubber shoes, either homemade or new, were available in 1888. There were empty houses and wall lamps at both scenes. When JTR left by the main entrance at Mitre Square he would have walked right past where White described his position. Same goes for Berner Street. The soft voice of the suspect is mentioned by witness at Berner Street as in the White story. One suspect is described by witnesses at both scenes. This witness would fit the White story. The blood flow is noticed at Berner Street.
Are there problems with the White version? Yes. Why is there no mention of a hat? Is the suspect walking around bare headed on such a cold night? If so he must be a young man with a full head of hair. One explanation could be JTR was carrying body parts in his hat which was stuffed in his coat, but this could not be Berner Street. White notices the suspect's hands with amazing detail for such dim lighting. If it was that cold you would expect hands to be inside pockets for protection from the elements or to hide possible bloodstains. And why did White use the term cul-de-sac instead of square or courtyard?
The two biggest problems with the Mitre Square scenario are: what is the Met doing in City territory and how could they not know Mitre Square had more than one pedestrian access? White's story is not a perfect fit for Berner Street either. The White story suggets police discovered the body and makes no mention of the horse cart. As White interviews residents after the fact on Berner Street he gives no indication in his report of having been at the scene the night before. How did he instantly jump to the conclusion the Stride murder was the work of JTR? Some don't accept Stride as a JTR victim but as an unrelated coincidental case. There was no mutilation involved to indicate the JTR trademark. There is even more to confuse the issue.
For some reason I can't explain this story, even with all its contradictions, has an essence of authenticity. If it is a fiction why did someone go to all the trouble and for what purpose? And why would he risk a negative reaction from family and colleagues of White, or Anderson for that matter? If he was indeed "a Scotland Yard man" he was risking exposure and possible expulsion. Why risk that for a story that sounds interesting but achieves nothing substantial? The only explanation that sounds logical is that White made arrangements to have this story published for reasons known only to himself.
All this may be moot however because evidently the case has been solved and JTR has been identified. See message board: Witnesses: A Type of Hell: The Fall of Louis Diemshutz. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 03:22 pm | | Hello Robeer,
congratulations for your posts.
One may agree or not but you went deep and that's a hard work.
Just some personal remarks ( I must admit that I do not know a lot about Detective's White story):
a) if you go just on statistical analysis, there is a huge likelyhood that JtR(s) was(were) not very tall (5'6/5'7) at least from the sights of the men seen by witnesses around the various murder sites. From recollection the man supposedly seen by Detective White was a lot taller.
b) Are you sure that Dutfield's yard was a "cul-de sac" ? I do not remember that it was never officially stated beyond any doubt. (Mitre square was absolutely not).
c) I do not remember any statement (official or not) relating to any wall lamp in Dutfield's yard.
d) Since you say that the case has been solved, could you please tell me who Jack was ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 02:45 pm | | graziano,
The White story estimates the height of the JTR suspect to be 5'10", by far the tallest suspect. The difference between 5'7" and 5'10" is a 4.5% variance. Often statistical results have a plus or minus 3% to 5% variance factor, depending on the data, the sample size, and the methodology. You will rarely see a statistical analysis that will gurantee less than a 3% variance.
What one has to evaluate is the impact of this variance. It was a cold dark night, the meeting was unexpected, it was a very brief encounter, JTR could have been walking on the sidewalk while the observer was standing in the street, sometimes objects look bigger in the dark especially if they are unexpected. Given all this is a 4.5% discrepency significant?
One method I used to evaluate the data is what details are the average person most likely to notice first and what are they most likely to get right, and then of course what is the least likely aspect to get correct. Hat, face, color of hair and complexion, mustache, eye color, unusual clothing would be in the high category. Age, height, weight are more problematical. Some people look young for their age. It has been suggested Tumblety was 55 at the time of the murders but could pass for 35. That is quite a difference.
Some people slouch when they walk so are taller than they appear. Was the witness observed walking or simply leaning against a wall? I tried to factor all this into my analysis. Keep in mind that Stewart Evans thinks none of the witnesses were reliable and pretty much dismisses all of them. He was a career police officer with years of experience of interviewing witnesses. Obviously he feels witnesses aren't that reliable. So what it boils down to is a 4.5% variance enough, in and of itself, to eliminate a possible suspect?
In the debate as to what is a cul-de-sac and what isn't I have read in the message board that Dutfield's Yard is the only site that would qualify as a true cul-de-sac as the term is used in Britian. Actually from the standpoint of vehicular traffic Mitre Square is most certainly a cul-de-sac. It is definitely not, in terms of pedestrian access. Rumbelow refers to Mitre Square as a 'close'. At first I thought it possible the White story could be using the vehicle reference to cul-de-sac however, the White story seems to use the term in its most restrictive sense as a complete cul-de-sac.
Cul-de-sac was an unfortunate choice of words. In the United States cul-de-sac has a different connotation. Very few cul-de-sacs in the US would prohibit foot traffic. The White story also uses another curious word, 'alleyway'.
Sometimes that has a different meaning than alley. An alleyway implies for pedestrians only. This too would tend to eliminate Mitre Square, but arguably even Berner Street. Dutfield Yard allowed the entry of a horse and cart as we know. However, it would be closer to an alleyway than Mitre Square which is definitely an alley. On the other hand, some may use the terms interchangably.
The choice of words in the White story are both tantalizing and maddening. "An alley behind Whitechapel Road". What exactly does this mean? Does the alley connect directly with Whitechapel Road or is it simply a quick walk to the road? Mitre Square is closer than any other, but to ALdgate. However, Aldgate is a continuation of Whitechapel so did this distinction get blurred over time? Does "behind" mean above or below the road or both? You can see why police officers like Evans could get frustrated with witnesses.
Somewhere I read on the message board a detailed discussion of the wall lamp mentioned in the story. It is my understanding that Mitre Square definitely had a wall lamp. If memory serves correctly, someone suggested there was a wall lamp on Berner Street as well. I would have to defer to others as to this question.
As to solving the case, I was referring to a response from you to Ed that, if I read correctly, the two of you are in agreement that a photograph he was sending you was indeed JTR. If so, I hope you will share it with us. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 05:21 pm | | Hello Robeer,
in a statitstical test you may absolutely accept a sampling variance of 5% without putting in doubt the result.
a 3 inches or 7.5 cm difference in the height of a person is a lot.
When the witness describing this height is a policeman (White in 1888 or Evans 100 years later) well trained to that purpose is unbelievable that he would make such a mistake.
I think that "cul-de-sac" is the word White or the person who writed for him used so it should be the correct one.
If it means in english what it means in french it describes (speaking about street) a street (or a whatever place surrounded by wall or buildings) where you can enter but not go out any other way but the one you took to enter.
In practice you are right when you say that Dutfield's yard was one (and so was Miller's court).
But for Dutfield's yard I have the doubt that this was true for traps but not necessarily for people walking ( look the map about it on Casebook Productions / Maps / Berner street ).
In any case, no other sites were cul-de-sac (not even Castle alley).
It is certain from a lot of different testimonies that there was not any lamp on any of the wall of Dutfield's yard.
As for the solving of the case, I am it's true in the opinion that Ed managed to solve it.
But I did not and about the real identity of Jack I know certainly not more than you.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 07:26 pm | | I think Dutfield's Yard would qualify as an alleyway ( a narrow passageway ) and as a cul-de-sac ( a street or passageway you can only enter from one end ) , its also my opinion it was ' behind ' the Whitechapel road. In the Uk a person could say " Behind those houses is a field next to a wood and then there is another field ... " - it wouldn't mean that these things are literally right behind the houses , they could be at some distance behind the houses.
Now imagine standing on the Whitechapel Road looking south towards the London hospital. Saying ' Behind this road ' would include everything behind the buildings on the south side of the road , Commercial Street , Berner Street and Dutfield's Yard. I agree its an odd turn of phrase. But ' behind ' generally refers to an object , ie something behind the object. The only objects of note on a street would be buildings so we could assume the phrase really means ' Behind the buildings on the Whitechapel Road ' !
The only problem I have with Dutfield's Yard is the wall-lamp : where was it ? Normally it would be outside a pub , but apparently the ' Nelson ' pub didn't have one. This is very important and severely handicaps the case for Berner Street if there was no walllamp.
In contrast Mitre Square DID have a walllamp on the left side of the entrance from Mitre Street ; Mitre Sq could be called a ' cul-de-sac' too as it was open to traffic from only one way. But Mitre Square had more than one exit to foot traffic.
Its all very confusing !! |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 04:13 pm | | Hello Robeer,
but I know his religion.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 06:05 pm | | | Viper , can you enlighten us ? Was there a wall-lamp anywhere in the vacinity of Berner Street ? |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 06:40 pm | | Simon
See my last post:
Needing Information re: Annie Chapman
above
Regards, Jon
(PS, lamps are circles) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 06:50 pm | | Dear Graziano,
I take it you mean ...you know Jack the Ripper's religion? Are we to take it that this is an incidental discovery...or, CENTRAL... to the unmasking of the Whitechapel murderer? |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 09:31 pm | | I think the poster using "graziano" should be considered Christopher-Michael DiGrazia until disproof of this identity is made on this web site. Posting tongue-in-cheek and in camera, DiGrazia could evade responsibility, a good indication of the likely truth of this proposition.
David |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 04:34 am | | Simon,
Regarding lighting: the nearest street lamp was affixed to the wall at the corner of Berner and Fairclough Streets (on the corner diagonally opposite to the pub). The pub itself may or may not have had a lantern attached - I don't know. There was certainly no street lamp that would have shone light directly into Dutfield's Yard.
My understanding is that the entrance section to the yard was very dark indeed at night. Further up, the gloom was pierced somewhat from light thrown down from the club's windows upstairs, from the printing office and potentially from the cottages opposite. I have never heard of a lamp being fixed inside Dutfield's Yard. If anyone else has, please shine a light here :-)
Regards, V. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 04:27 pm | | Hello David,
ok, you got me.
But I will uncover my true identity only if Paula, Corinne and Christopher George Ray all do.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 06:59 pm | | I have received yet another disturbing e-mail from Ms Alegria Mendes. It is difficult to understand precisely what she means to say to me--the text is bizarre and self-contradictory. It contains considerable threatening language, however, and attempts to intimidate or extort me concerning what I will in the future post and not post to this web site. It apparently was motivated in part by my posts to the present topic. I will post the e-mail in its entirety to this topic sometime this weekend. I regret the inconvenience to others, in that events have once again come down to a threat to free speech on these message boards.
David |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Let me save you the trouble David. Here is the e-mail that was sent to you. It was approved by Stephen prior to its sending.
Lately admin has received complaints about your posts. People feel that you are being abusive in general and in particular, to Christopher-Michael DiGrazia. That however, is not the subject of this e-mail. In the future, please refrain from posting accusations about the 'secret identities' of posters. We do not have the time or the inclination to perform the checks and validations required after one of your accusations. If a poster is not being abusive, we do not care who he is and your whim is not sufficient cause for wasting our time.
As you apparently did not understand what I said, I will restate it more clearly: Stop making accusations against people. You are wasting our time.
Understand now? |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:33 am | | Hello Rosemary,
I m sorry, I just missed your post yesterday.
Since we are entering the religious field and seen what all this has done in the history of humanity, aknowledging that it was my mistake to speak about it first but not being sure to explain in english without creating misunderstangins (look what mess some other posts of mine have created), could I ask you to use my joker here and avoid answering ?
You know, the answers about religious questions are always a matter of faith.
Bye. Graziano. (The only and the true). |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:54 am | | Hello Alegria,
once again I think I lost a message (somewhere in the wires) so I rewrite it (hoping the other does not come out later).
I think that David s goal was only to put a bit of fun in all that.
Hope that Chris-Michael did not feel abused because he was compared to me.
I state here that I am a real person, that Graziano is my real name and that nobody uses me to divulgate his own opinions.
I am ready to testify about that under oath and before a Coroner.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 07:37 am | | Hello Graziano,
Don't worry about duplicate posts. They are easily deleted and no big deal. They happen to everyone.
I appreciate your good humor about Radkas' post. In the past, he has made accusations about 'secret identities' and the person accused was not as tolerant as you. My main problem with this type of humor is that many people will take it seriously and then, as I am the new fetch-and-carry girl on the boards, I have to do the leg-work involved to prove/disprove. I am a lazy person by nature...I don't like extra work!! Anyway I do appreciate your humor and have enjoyed your additions to the boards.
Ally |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 02:01 pm | | Dear Graziano,
What do ypou mean by your statement: I know his religion? Jokers not allowed at this point!
Rosey :-) |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:06 pm | | Hello Rosey,
no, you can't do that.
One mistake must be allowed.
That's the purpose of Purgatory.
Bye. Penitentiaginae. Graziano. |
Author: Robeer
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 07:28 pm | | The following is a list of books published prior to 1919 having in common the history of East London. The source of this list is Rumbelow's book, The Complete Jack the Ripper. The bibliography has been rearranged in sequential order by date of publication.
This is a fascinating sequence. Keep in mind L. Forbes Winslow died in 1913, so it is unlikely he could be the anonymous author of the White article. Don't know when E. Callaghan died.
Three books of significance appear the same year, 1910. Also, there are three books in a row authored by former police officers, two of which White worked for. The last book, written by White's immediate boss, appeared just four years prior to White's death. It is not hard to imagine that a retired Detective Inspector would have read all four of the books highlighted in the list. These memoirs no doubt would have provided White the motivation to record his own claim to fame for posterity, a face-to-face meeting with the most notorious killer in London history.
The Complete Jack the Ripper, Donald Rumbelow, bibliography:
• 1890 - Leaves of a Life, Montague Williams
• 1891 - Later Leaves, Montague Williams
• 1898 - Mysteries of Police and Crime, Major Arthur Griffiths
1900 > Detective Inspector Steve White retires
• 1902 - People of the Abyss, Jack London
• 1903 - East London, Walter Besant
• 1904 - Life and Labour of the People of London, Charles Booth
• 1910 - The Lighter Side of My Official Life, Sir Robert Anderson
• 1910 - From Constable to Commissioner, Lieut. Col. Sir Henry Smith
• 1910 - Recollections of Forty Years, L. Forbes Winslow
• 1915 - Days of My Years, Sir Melville Macnaghten
1919 > Detective Inspector Steve White dies
• 1919 - The Steve White Letter, Peolple's Choice, 26 September 1919
____________________________________________________________
The suspect in the White story is described as 5' 10" tall, the tallest suspect based on witnesses. Given the fact Tumblety was described as a tall man one would think SPE would take more interest in this story. If memory serves, one witness described a suspect who was 3" taller than Long Liz. If Stride was even 5' 5" tall then the White suspect is very close.
The following three witnesses seem to be ranked high on the credibility scale by various Ripperologists:
Israel Schwartz, Joseph Lawende, Elizabeth Long
Ironically, none of them saw JtR face-to-face nor did any speak to him. At best Schwartz and Lawende saw him from a sideview from across the street and Elizabeth Long did not see his face at all! If this encounter did actually occur between White and JtR then White becomes the most significant witness in the history of this unsolved mystery. All of this is circumstantial speculation but if impirical evidence existed there would be no need to speculate. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 18 August 2001 - 04:49 am | | Hello Robeer,
I find the suspect of D I White's quite interesting, but only mildly so. His description of the character he thought could be JtR is too much like the mythical picture attention seekers were painting of the killer,--eg, long black coat, glowing eyes, black hair, soft voice, long white tapered fingers, wore rubber soles or galoshes of some kind, (did he describe him as wearing a black slouch hat?). Sounds too made up, too good to be true, too fictional, --much the same as Hutchinsons sighting, now theres another man who could have written a good book!!. I'd prefer Lawends sighting. He had nothing to gain or lose.
Regards Rick. |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 11:30 pm | | Rick,
Actually one of the problems with the White story is there is no mention of a hat. Hats were a prominent part of descriptions given by all witnesses, for good reason. It is one of the first and most obvious items noticed. Since there was such a variety of hats in those days it is a significant feature. In the White story it would be unusaul for this suspect to not be wearing a hat on such a cold night.
The only two things I can find in common that place a suspect at both Berner St and Mitre Square on that cold wet night is the height of the suspects and their hats. The hat in question is described as a 'peaked hat like a sailor would wear'. If I am not mistaken Lawende described the suspect as having the appearence of a sailor because of his hat and a reddish scarf.
However, a different style hat connects the suspect at Hanbury St to the other suspect at Berner St. Both wore a deerstalker hat.
I agree with you the suspect in the White story does sound spooky. Guess what, the newest suspect in the case has exactly those color eyes. This is the 'French Connection' suspect. See Message Board, General Discussion, Miscellaneous, "A new & very credible JTR suspect", Archive thru April 16, 2000. Keep in mind the spelling of Juwes in Goulston St is very close to the French spelling. By the way, the archives in this section are some of the most entertaing of any on the message boards. The conversation and repartee is both lively and witty. That isn't the primary reason why I read the message board but I couldn't help but be amused by the clever exchange of wit, which was quite infomative actually.
We all must guard against a preconcieved notion of what JTR looked like. To me Dr. T. Neill Cream looks like the classic JTR, but that is a preconcieved notion from watching old movies. However, it is obvious JTR did not look dangerous to his victims. He must have been very approachable even during the terror on the streets.
The White story has been dismissed by many due to lack of provenance and lack of motivation. The message posted above using Rumbelow's bibliography gives a credible source of motivation. A retired police officer would have plenty of time for reading. Of the last four consecutive books on this list two are written by White's former superiors and the other by L. Forbes Winslow which should have been somewhat controversial at the time. White could have read this out of curiosity but he would be a dull fellow indeed not to read the books by his former bosses at the Metro PD. The last book was by his immediate superior.
If White had any stories to tell or perhaps only one story, this would be understandable motivation to record it for posterity. So at least we have found a reasonable motivation for the White story. Now the hard part is to nail down the provenance. If more ripperologists worked on this aspect then we might uncover more information. For instance, can anyone living in London call the cemeteries to locate where White is buried and inquire as to what month he died? If he died after the story was published then he must have acquiesced to its publication. If he died one month and the story was published soon after, it would indicate a connection, pehaps a dying wish or permission.
Are there descendants of Stephen White still living in London? Do they have any family tradition passed down as to an episode with JTR? On this Message Board: Witnesses, a fellow named Humphryes is trying to find information about a female witness named Humphreys because a great aunt claimed JTR chased her down the street as a young girl. She must have been terribly frightened because she told this story for the rest of her life. Perhaps the White descendants have knowledge of a family story. Is it possible to post a message in a London paper to locate family members or would that be impractical?
Robeer |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Hello Robeer,
"Juwes" is close to the french spelling ?
Juif / Juifs
Juive / Juives,
maybe "juives".
You mean it (the Goulston street graffito) refers precisely to jewish women (more than one), but then it says "...are the men..." ?
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: speaking about male/female, some time ago I sent you a question. I am still interested in knowing. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 08:11 am | | Dear Graziano,
Damn it...we've gone through the Jewish population of London...and Warsaw!
Rosey:-) |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 07 April 2002 - 01:20 am | | Hello All,
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the outstanding Ripper Conference in Baltimore. Donald Rumbelow will be the featured speaker so it would be an appropriate time to discuss one of his more controversial discoveries:
the Steve White letter, September 26, 1919.
Donald Rumbelow explains in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper:
Quote:By chance, I happened to be looking through some old cuttings that were pasted in a battered three-volume edition of Griffith's Mysteries of Police and Crime. Among them was one from the People's Journal issue of 26 September 1919, on the retirement of a detective named 'Steve' White who had spent many nights as a young policeman loitering around the evil-smelling alleys of Whitechapel in search of Jack the Ripper.
According to a dissertation by Andrew L. Morrison here on the Casebook:
Quote:Soon after White's death an article appeared in the "People's Journal" relating to the Whitechapel murders. It was written in the first person and tells how White and two other men had for five nights "been watching a certain alley just behind the Whitechapel Road".
Morrison appears to know the exact date when Steve White died but omits this information from the dissertation. Perhaps if he still reads the Casebook Message Board he can share this information with us.
Upon reading both of the above we are curious if Steve White made a record of this story during his retirement or was it written by someone else after his death? For what purpose was this story written? Is the article authentic or is it a press hoax as some believe?
Even if it is a press hoax why was it's appearance related to White’s death? If true does this story refer to Mitre Square, Berner Street, or Castle Alley? If it did happen at Mitre Square what is a Met stakeout doing well inside the City Police territory? And what was the purpose of the stakeout to begin with and why this location?
The story is a puzzle. Some dismiss it as just another press hoax. Even if this is true, why was a press hoax triggered by White’s death? The story fails to name a suspect. The author is anonymous so no one benefits from the story by fame or fortune, so what was the reason for publishing this story in 1919?
Assuming White did write the story during his retirement and made no attempt to have it published with fanfare, then he must have written it for posterity. It is entirely possible he wrote it to set the record straight that he was the only person to meet JtR face to face and lived to tell about it, and that JtR was a cultured Englishman and not a working class foreigner.
Another purpose behind the article appears to be a lengthy explanation of why JtR was not arrested on the spot. If this event happened at Berner Street or Mitre Square then JtR escaped to commit his most ghastly murder of Mary Jane Kelly. This could have weighed heavy on White’s mind for the rest of his life.
The question is hotly debated as to where this story took place. Rumbelow immediately assumed it was Mitre Square. Close inspection of the details to the story lead others to believe Berner Street. More skeptical students of the case say if it took place at all, it must have been Castle Alley. The story itself fails to mention where this unexpected confrontation took place, which is a very strange ommission indeed.
There are problems with the story. First and foremost, if it was Mitre Square what would a Met stakeout be doing deep inside City jurisdiction? Next is the description of the location as a ‘cul-de-sac’. This is a French word meaning literally ‘bottom of the sack’. This phrase basically means ‘box canyon’, only one way in and one way out. None of the three mentioned locations is a cul-de-sac in the strictest meaning of the term, including pedestrian traffic. By the same token, all three locations are cul-de-sacs in terms of vehiclular access.
Certain elements to the story fit each of the three possible locations. However, certain details tend to eliminate each of the locations. So what are we to make of this story fraught with contradictions?
There is even more information that gives cause to wonder. Apparently, the Met Police at some point in time were provided a description of the suspect. Evidently this description had a high degree of credibility, judging from the incident where a frightened prostitute tried to get a Met PC to investigate a man she thought might be JtR but was brushed off because the man in question did not fit the description disseminated from HQ.
Where did this description come from? Not the Polly Nichols murder. The description from the Annie Chapman murder did not include the face of the suspect. So we can eliminate these two as the source. On the night of the double event there were several descriptions from Berner Street and one even provided by a Met PC. However, none of the descriptions can be tied directly to the perp. The closest would be Israel Schwartz and his description was not that clear.
So on to Mitre Square. A couple was observed by patrons leaving a pub on Duke Street and some vendors at the Orange Market. Evidently the Orange Market contact was the better of the two sightings. Would these descriptions be sufficient to give a high degree of confidence to the police? After reading both descriptions one would have to conclude both lacked details as to the facial features of the suspect. Two City PC’s claimed to have examined the interior of Mitre Square within 4 minutes of each other and neither claims to have seen a suspect.
Is it possible that one City PC actually did see the suspect and for some unknown reason the City Police did not want this fact made public? What is compelling is that Smith, Anderson, and Macnaghten all mention that a City PC saw JtR. They seem to place a high degree of confidence in this one description. Either they are withholding information from the public or there is one other explanation: a policemen did see JtR that night but he wasn’t a City PC.
Quote:White’s description of the suspected murderer, according to the newspaper, was widely circulated and used by the police at the time, but the man was never seen. It alleged that it gave Sir Robert Anderson his conviction that the murderer was a Jewish medical student, who had taken this method of avenging himself on women of the class to which his victims belonged.
Is it possible the Met did set up a stakeout around Mitre Square with or without the permission of the City PD? We know the Met did have a suspect they were keeping track of who worked in Met territory but lived in the City. It would make more sense for the Met to keep a 24 hour watch on this suspect than the City because the Met had far greater resources. It is also possible the Met was loaning men to the City or that an understanding was reached at the street level as to overlapping stakeouts. Perhaps a City PC was under suspician and the Met was called in to keep his beat under surveillance.
Another question would be how widespread was prostitution within the City boundaries? Could it be that Mitre Square was the most well known spot for prostitutes to gather and detectives had a hunch that JtR would eventually show up there to find another victim? Perhaps they anticipated that increased patrols of Met territory would ultimately force JtR to use a City location. If so what would be the most likely location? Would that indeed be Mitre Square?
The only indication that a police officer confronted JtR and actually spoke to him is the alleged Steve White story. To keep the details quiet of why a Met PC engaged a suspect deep inside City territory the story may have been altered to say it was a City PC. This would prevent any awkward questions as to how this came to happen.
We know that three top police officials from both jurisdictions have stated flatly that a police officer saw and described JtR. We know there is no City PC who claims to have seen the suspect. We know there is an anonymous newspaper article claiming a Met PC confronted JtR. Despite the lack of provenance and the apparent contradictions revealed in the story, it provides the only known explanation as to where the mysterious description of JtR came from.
If anyone is headed to Baltimore perhaps you can ask Donald Rumbelow more questions about his famous and controversial discovery.
Robeer |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 07 April 2002 - 09:26 pm | | Is it not true that Dutfield's Yard WAS a cul-de-sac in the correct sense of the term , in that it had houses or lodgings at the bottom of it , next to the social club ?
I firmly believe that this is a true story and that everything in the article refers to the Elizabeth Stride murder , that the location is Berner's Street/Dutfield's Yard and that the yard was being watched due to the presence of anarchists or socialists at the club that night , note the rest of the article refers to White's dealings with anarchists.
Simon |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 02:16 pm | | Simon,
As I understand the strict interpretation of the term 'cul-de-sac' as used in England, even a pedestrian would be forced to enter and leave by the same entrance. The question would then be: did Dutfield's Yard have any doors that would allow a pedestrian to pass through without leaving by the gate on Berner Street? It was my understanding that it did. I thought the police tried many doors of shops to see if they were locked the night of the murder.
Was there a door that opened from the club into the yard? If so then technically a pedestrian could walk into the yard, through a door accessible to the yard, and out the other side. Didn't someone speculate this is how the killer made his escape when Diemshutz caught him by surprise?
The term as used in the US is not nearly so restrictive. In the US the word cul-de-sac refers to vehicular traffic, not pedestrian traffic. In fact, I've never seen a cul-de-sac in the US that would prevent pedestrian traffic. Martin Fido points out that Castle Alley had a pedestrian passage so was not a true cul-de-sac, so that leaves Dutfield's Yard as the only possible option.
If it had doors or even windows that would allow a pedestrian to leave the yard is it a true cul-de-sac? Even so, Dutfield's Yard is probably the closest thing to a cul-de-sac of the 3 locations. You have always made a good argument that Berner Street was the better choice for the location of the White story.
I'm coming at this from a different perspective. If Smith, Anderson, and Macnaghten all claim a City PC saw the suspect and gave a good description of him then this unnamed PC must have seen the suspect at Mitre Square, unless there was a City PC on Berner Street, which is not impossible but unlikely. If this City PC did spot the suspect at Mitre Square then there are 3 possibilities:
• Either Harvey or Watkins did see JtR that night but were ordered not to mention it to the press or at the inquest.
• The man who asked about a couple entering the square was an undercover City detective and at sometime that night had seen the suspect from up close, enough to get a good description of his facial features.
• No City PC saw the suspect. For reasons that are unclear Steve White was supervising a stakeout at Mitre Square and bumped into the suspect.
Sergeant White would want to keep this stakeout very low profile no doubt. If he did indeed meet the suspect leaving Mitre Square that may explain his hesitation to detain the man. He was not in his own jurisdiction and may have felt uneasy about being too aggressive. Had this meeting taken place in Met territory White may have felt much more comfortable in detaining this suspicious man.
Remember something else: a Met PC was in Mitre Square as soon as other City PCs arrived. Where did he come from and how did he get there so quick? The obvious answer is he may have been part of White's stakeout team.
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 06:23 pm | | Simon,
You have a good eye for detail. Is it possible that the undercover City detective lost contact with the couple in the Orange Market because he expected them to leave by Duke Street? When they didn't come back that way he went in to ask where they had gone. After the murder was discovered he confirmed this was the woman he had been watching and immediately went to the vendors in Orange Market to get a description of the man she was with. He was satisfied that the description was accurate and passed this information on to HQ. Smith somehow got the details confused that the PC himself saw the suspect.
Or worse, this detective was following the couple and did see the suspect well enough to provide a description but managed to lose them in the crowd. Smith did not want the public to know one of his detectives allowed the couple to slip away with disasterous consequences so kept quiet about this part of the case to protect the reputation of the department and the detective involved.
Both of these scenarios seem plausible. The only problem is usually the details of these stories tend to surface as time goes by. This one never did so we can only speculate.
The Steve White story is very curious. As you once asked, "who would even know about White's involvement in this case in 1919?" This is over three decades later and White's name had never come up before as being a high profile PC in this investigation. The only time his name was mentioned was in door to door questioning on Berner Street.
The story may sound 'cobbled together' because it may not have been a first hand account. White may have told the story to his family. After his death his wife may have tried to retell the story to an interested party, say a son-in-law who was fascinated by this eerie tale. After White's death he tries to relay the story knowing that the public has taken a renewed interest in this mystery because of recent books on the topic. The temptation to share this story was irresistible to this person, so the story was offered to the People's Journal. Perhaps the Journal felt the provenance was credible and decided to publish it.
The author remained anonymous to spare the widow and family from being hassled by the press. The young son-in-law may have been a junior Met PC at the time and knew the brass would frown on his writing the story, so remaining anonymous was in the best interest of all concerned.
Because he heard the story second hand he got some of the details mixed up. He knew that a Met stakeout in City territory might be a political hot potato so he intentionally left the name of the 'cul-de-sac' out of the story thinking it better to be vague as to the real location, or he guessed most people would figure it out anyway without naming the site. If he was a young Met PC he may have been wary that his superiors would be furious if he divulged this secret affair and knew he would have a very short career in the Met if he was the one to spill the beans.
If White composed the story he too might have been intentionally vague as to the site and may have even added details to obfuscate as to the actual site, the purpose being to describe the setting but not reveal the fact a Met stakeout was deep inside City territory. He too would not wish to create a negative reaction from the Met or put his pension in jeopardy.
Lest anyone think this never happens, think again. There are a number of reasons one police jurisdiction may request help from another. It could be for observation of performance, a concern over possible corruption, a possible suspect in uniform, or the fact that after awhile the street people get to know the regular cops on sight, in uniform or out.
Smaller departments have this problem. The City was much smaller than the Met so it would be logical to ask for more reinforcements from the larger force. Both departments would want to keep this arrangement very hush-hush, so any hint of this cooperative tactic would entail repercussions, hence the reluctance of someone like Steve White to reveal the details, even in retirement.
Robeer |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Interesting that you should mention the Orange Market as I have a personal theory about the man who was seen there , it goes something like this :
The couple seen by Lawende and Levy were NOT Catherine Eddowes and her lover/client.
This couple entered Mitre Square and stumbled upon the butchery that was going on , or into the Ripper entering the square.
The couple ran away , and after some delay the Ripper gives chase.
Meeting the watchman in the Orange market , he asks if a couple have been seen passing by there.
If White and Simpson were watching Mitre Square they would have been doing it from Mitre Street or the ' cul-de-sac ' reference doesn't make sense. There was a wall lamp there as well , but how do we explain the part about there being ' no other exits ' ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 05:58 pm | | Is there any actual hard evidence that this newspaper report is a fake ? Anything at all ?
From what I remember last time we talked about this , people believed it was made-up on the grounds of ' Oh it doesn't feel right ' or ' it feels wrong '. But this was in the distant past !!! Is there anyone new here since then who believes the report might be true ?
Simon |
|
|
|
|
