|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The mystery City PC of Mitre Square
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials:
The mystery City PC of Mitre Square
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 04:37 pm |        | Jon,
Tried a few things for you, such as the Boolean setting with a string saying "lamp and cook" and couldn't see anything resembling a reference to cooking with a police lantern either. Perhaps you read the story somewhere else?
Do have a play with the Press Search facility some time. I keep seeing people write things like "there's a press report somewhere that says something like...". Stephen Ryder has provided these helpful little tools and they are there to be used by everyone.
Regards, V. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 04:40 pm | | Little things, little things. That's all this thread's aboot, IMHO. We've got to parse out every single last niggling possibility concerning "The PC in Mitre Square," don't we? Quite a title, that's got.
You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the difference between what redneck colleges think is legitimate scholarship, and what valuable colleges do. The redneck college, let's say Southern Connecticut State University, will sit you down and teach you a huge lot of rules. You'll sit there and parse out every last niggling possibility for them, they'll hand you a sheepskin, and tell you that you did something really valuable in learning all that stuff, that now you really know something. The valuable college, let's say Trinity College, Hartford, will develop your ability to ask questions concerning what you really want to learn and about what knowledge is. You won't learn a whole lot of stuff from them, but you'll become resourceful concerning what is important to you and your ongoing situation throughout life, and how to learn about it and put to use when you determine what it is.
Little things, little things, that's what Ripperology's all about, too. Even the best men in it now spend their time merely niggling. Blenkinsop? Halse? Watchboy? Are these really the questions we should be asking?
A point to ponder, from your uncle Dave Radka |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 05:02 pm | | Anyway, the apparition of Mitre Square continues to elude us. (PC leaves stage left. Agitated PC rushes on from stage right.Uproarious commotions ensue. Cue. "A Nightingale Sang...").
A Critic.
:-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 05:29 pm | | To be brutally honest , the watchboy story just isn't going to stand up - the only link it has to the case is that the couple went towards Mitre Square.
It does show that there were no useful reported sightings of Eddowes with anybody else that night however. |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 05:35 pm | | Hi Martin:
re: "animals" - you were wondering why Schindler's Ark was filmed as "Schindler's List".
Thanks for the note on the OS map. It does indeed appear to be of 1890s vintage. I will see if I can locate anything pre-1888 to do a comparison; one of the pieces of research I can attempt without the need to travel from Texas to Colindale!
regards
timsta |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 05:40 pm | | Simon,
To be absolutely brutally honest, I think the statement: "There were no reported sightings of Eddowes in the vicinity of Mitre Square... whatsoever." is sufficient?
:-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 07:40 pm | | I wonder whether this 'cooking by police lantern' quest is following up a garbling of the well attested fact that London PCs on the beat used to keep tin cans of tea which they slipped in beside the gas mantles of street lamps to keep them hot.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 09:54 pm | | Grey little men in grey little suits. Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 07:40 am | | Yet little things dully demonstrated may be the breath of hope or kiss of doom for a big exciting theory, David. The use of ad hoc police seaside homes between 1887 and 1890 offers the only hope for Swanson's suspect to have been in part based on David Cohen. The possibility that the London Hospital was unlike those around which complaint raged in 1888 because they were so closed and fortified at night that even nursing staff couldn't get out if they needed to is the only chance for Donston Stephenson to have been on the prowl on Ripper nights. An unrecorded but apparently automatic police bail granted between arrest and appearance before the magistrates is essential for Tumblety to remain in the frame for MJK's murder.
And often the little things prove of striking interest when one is looking at the peripheral social history. Exactly fifty years after the Ripper, Brian Delane's "Who Killed the Count" and Barbara Pym's "Crampton Hodnet" were both making a point of rubber soles as silent adjuncts to secrecy and spying. Fascinating to know that police officers with pieces of rubber tire tied to their feet pioneered this, and complaining prostitutes confirmed its efficacy.
All the best,Martin (the pedant) F
(Sorry the spacer is playing silly buggers) |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 03:24 pm | | Please let me say first of all:
I, a poor unpublished wretch, sincerely and humbly accept the pantheon of the great Ripperologists Fido, Begg, Sugden, Evans and Rumbelow as my masters.
Under no circumstances should my above post be interpreted that I meant Mr. Fido as Tweedledum and Mr. Begg as Tweedledee.
All I've got is a little bit of a clearing, really. A little clearing into which we can step and see a few of the little things from a bit of a distance...
Propadeutically,
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 05:41 pm | | I shouldn't be offended if you did think of Tweedlefid and Tweedlebeg, David. Contrairiwise and nohow. Nor would I object if you envisaged Athbeg, Porthfid and Aramskin leaping around in defence of each other and D'Arfeldmann or D'Artagnevans. I certainly don't want genuflections from anyone, and trust that seeing Big Barons as Potentially Laughable Figures will save us all from Monstrous Crows or situations causing God and his angels to weep! All the best,
Martin F |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 24 June 2002 - 02:39 pm | | Actually,Martin...I've always thought of our resident authors as more akin to the faculty of Unseen University....No bets on who's the Librarian.
Steve |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 07:58 am | | Little things, little things,
They may be the biggest of things David.
Little things, little things,
This is why we put up with you Dear little David.
Monty
 |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 07:32 am | | Putting up with one another shouldn't be that much harder to do than putting one another down - should it? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 10:33 am | | Caz,
Apparently it is.
Monty
|
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 11:36 am | | To all,
One of the ancillary mysteries of this case is evidently the police were using a description of the suspect that had been disseminated from headquarters. There was an incident where a prostitute felt like she being approached by JtR and ran to a PC for protection. She pointed out the suspicious man but the PC said he did not fit the description of the JtR suspect and did not detain the man for questioning. This incident suggests the police had a high degree of confidence in this description. Where did this description come from? The only mention of a possible sighting of the suspect that seemed a likely source for this description was the 'City PC near Mitre Square'.
However, the following press articles do indicate an official police description of the suspect. As you can see this description is prior to the Double Event murders.
Quote:Times (London)
September 11, 1888
"The Whitechapel Murders"
The following official notice has been circulated throughout the metropolitan police district and all police-stations throughout the country:--"Description of a man who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. on the 8th.--Age 37; height, 5ft. 7in.; rather dark beard and moustache. Dress-shirt, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent."
and
Quote:Woodford Times (Essex)
Friday, 14 September 1888
ANOTHER EAST LONDON HORROR.
A FOURTH WOMAN MURDERED AND MUTILATED.
THE SUPPOSED MURDERER.
The Scotland-yard authorities have come to a definite conclusion as to the description of the murderer of two, at least, of the hapless women found dead in East London, and the following is the official telegram despatched to every station throughout the metropolis and suburbs: "Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m. the 8th. Aged 37, height 5 ft. 7 in., rather dark, beard and moustache; dress, short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."
Emily Walter (?) description:
Annie Chapman seen at 2:00 A.M.
Foreigner aged 37, dark beard and moustache. Wearing short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat.
Asked witness to enter the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street.
Elizabeth Long description:
Annie Chapman seen at 5:30 A.M.
Dark complexion, brown deerstalker hat, possibly a dark overcoat. Aged over 40, somewhat taller than Chapman. A foreigner of "shabby genteel."
"Will you?"
_____________________________________________________________
If these articles are correct, police are using the earlier of the two descriptions. Wonder why?
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 06:27 am | | Robeer,
I'm very impressed by the careful, detailed and documented study of press reports you seem to be making. Are you within striking distance of Keith and Stewart (let's say anywhere from King's Lynn to Maidstone) to see whether they'd be interested in lining up with you to produce yet another masterly reference work for us?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 07:35 am | | Martin,
Thank you very much for the compliment, and also for your help and encouragement.
Robeer |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:41 pm | | Robeer, Phillip Sugden answers, quite neatly, the whole question of this mysterious foreign speaking suspect in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. In fact, the heading to chapter 6, The Man in the Passage and other Chapman Murder Myths, is in regards to this man.
I will add my own thoughts on this if I may. Chronology is very important here and it must be remembered that the police were working with information now, for the most part, disregarded. By this I mean the medical opinion of Dr. Phillips.
Dr. Phillips arrived at Hanbury Street at 6:30 a.m. and gave the opinion that Annie Chapman had been dead, "at least two hours", this from Inspector Chandlers report (MEPO 3/140, ff. 11), dated on the day of the murder, the 8th of September 1888. The police were therefor looking at a time frame of 4:30 or earlier. It wasn't until Dr. Phillips's inquest testimony which took place on Thursday the 13th of September that the Coroner, Wynne Baxter, pooh, poohed this suggestion. Baxter relied on the eyewitness testimony of John Richardson, Mrs. Long and Albert Cadosch to fix the time of death at around 5:30 a.m.
The interesting thing to note is that not only did the Lancet agree with Phillips but the police seemed to have as well. This can be inferred by Chief Inspector Swanson's report, (HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 137-45), dated 19th of October, 1888, or over a month after Phillips's inquest testimony. In this report Swanson begins with the information that, "Dr. Phillips the Divl. Surgeon was sent for, who stated that in his opinion death had taken place two or three hours.(sic)".
The report goes on to weigh Dr Phillips's opinion against both John Richardson and Mrs. Long's and states, "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. (sic), and he then gives it his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted." (emphasis mine.)
So the police, to some extent, downplayed Mrs. Long's description of a man seen at 5:30 in the morning, as being possibly too late to be that of the killer.
Wolf. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 01:15 pm | | Hi, Wolf
I'm interested in your views on the coroner's report, particularly this part-
"It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion. . ."
Did the Lancet take the temperature of the morning into account? In your opinion, do you think the coldness and blood loss should have had any effect on Dr. Phillips's opinion?
I'd also like to hear your take on Wynne Baxter, if you have an opinion of him. I'm much less informed about this case than you, so it's with respect that I ask, wasn't it his job to take into account all the evidence? Can we dismiss Richardson only with great difficulty?
Sorry if this is off-topic.
Thanks,
David |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 01:59 pm | | Wolf,
Thanks for this explanation. The only reason I could think of is the police didn't consider Long as a credible witness. I can see this would be a delimma for the police. Their choice is go with the expert opinion of the doctor or with a witness, knowing witnesses are sometimes unreliable. The problems created by the possibly flawed description that was promulgated by police headquarters has already been noticed in the story of a prostitute who seeks protection from a Met PC who fails to question a blotchy faced man because he did not match the description. If you will look on the Other Suspects thread and see the summary list of 20 suspects you will see the attitude of the police was influenced by the same misinformation pertaining to the very first one listed. It makes us wonder how many times this mistaken description influenced PCs on the street in the investigation of these crimes.
Robeer |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Hi David. We know from Inspector Chandlers report that Dr. Phillips, upon examining the body in situ, believed that Annie Chapman had been dead for two or more hours. At the inquest, when asked by the Coroner, Wynne Baxter, "How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?", Phillips replied, "He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood.", this from the Times, Friday, 14 September, 1888. This was reported almost exactly the same way in several other newspapers of the day.
We don't know why Dr. Phillips added his caveat that the body might cool more rapidly because of blood loss but it was apparently in response to a question or concern from the Coroner and was probably brought on by the fact that the Doctors opinion was at variance with the eyewitnesses.
This all seems cut and dried until you realize that Dr. Phillips was actually stating that in his medical opinion, Annie Chapman had indeed been dead for two or more hours when he had examined the body at 6:30 that morning. In other words, Dr. Phillips does not say that he has changed his mind about the two or more hour time frame only that he might be off, especially in view of what other witnesses might have to say. He is thus allowing the Coroner more latitude in his acceptance of other witnesses testimony. Were the other witnesses trustworthy enough to supercede the opinions of the Divisional Surgeon? Baxter certainly seems to think so.
Baxter seems to have placed his trust in John Richardson, Albert Cadosch and Mrs. Long rather than Dr. Phillips. This is why when he summed up the case Baxter mentions that, "It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces." (emphasis mine.)
Apparently others weren't as convinced as the Coroner as to the trustworthiness of the witnesses. After Elizabeth Long had given her testimony the day after the doctor had given his, the foreman of the jury stated, "the time stated by the witness was not consistent with that stated by the doctor.", to which the Coroner quickly replied, "Dr. Phillips had since qualified his statement."
This is an interesting exchange as it seems to show the jury placing more weight on Dr. Phillips' two or more hour time frame than Mr. Baxter would like, or indeed would accept. Some of the press were also not as convinced as Baxter. The East London Observer, when reporting on the doctors testimony, stated that Phillips had said merely that, "The deceased had been dead at least two hours – probably more. – ", with no hint of the caveat. The Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser went further in their report stating, "Mr. Phillips' positive opinion that the woman had been dead quite two hours when he first saw the body at half-past six throws serious doubt upon the accuracy on at least two important witnesses, and considerably adds to the prevailing confusion."
This brings me to the Lancet article of Saturday, 29 September, 1888. Here is the relevant section:
"If the evidence of Mrs. Long is to be credited, the victim was seen alive at half-past five in Hanbury-street, and about six o'clock her mangled corpse was discovered in the yard of the lodging-house. We confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view that the coldness of the body and commencing rigidity pointed to a far longer interval between death and discovery than this; but, as he remarked the almost total draining away of the blood, added to the exposure in the cold morning air, may have hastened the cooling down of the body."
The Lancet seems to be downplaying Mrs. Long's testimony stating, "Ifthe evidence of Mrs. Long is to be credited", while supporting Dr. Phillips' medical opinion based on both Rigor and Algor Mortis. Again, the medical opinion offered here is that Annie Chapman had been dead for a "far longer interval between death and discovery" than the less than one hour that the Coroner was shooting for. As I posted yesterday, Chief Inspector Swanson's report also seems to show that the police were less than sure of the eyewitness testimony and that they were placing their trust on Phillips instead.
You asked whether I think that the coldness and blood loss should have had any effect on Dr. Phillips's opinion. That's not a question that can be easily answered especially considering the complexities of attempting to determine the time of death at the best of times. basically you have a body that is supposed to have lost almost all of its internal and all of its external heat in under one hour. Combine this with the commencement of Rigor Mortis and you have a body that looks as if it has been exposed to the elements for a longer period than less than sixty minutes. Is it impossible for Chapman's body to have reached the condition in which it was found in under an hour? No. Is it likely? Probably not.
You also asked, "Can we dismiss Richardson only with great difficulty?", and the answer there is no, Richardson is such a poor witness that I personally dismiss him quite easily. When he first talked to Inspector Chandler on the morning of the murder he made no mention of going down the steps nor of sitting on the step in order to cut a piece of leather from his boot. This information was given first to the press and later to the Corner at the inquest so in effect he has changed and added to his original story, so, which one was it.
He also claimed that he was in the habit every market day of checking the cellar door to see that it was padlocked as there had been a break in some months earlier and some tools were stolen. His mother then claimed that she so trusted her neighbours that she didn't lock all her doors and that the theft of the tools had happened a long time ago. Either there was a need for John Richardson to visit the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street or there wasn't. Which one was it?
When Richardson was asked to produce the knife that he had used to cut the piece of leather off of his boot, he did so but it proved to be so dull that the Coroner asked him how he had been able to use it. Richardson now changed his story again and stated that he hadn't been able to and had to borrow one at the market.
So, first he says nothing about sitting on the stoop and cutting a piece of leather from his boot when first talking to the police. He then states that he had sat down on the middle step and cut a piece of leather from his boot when questioned by the Coroner. When confronted by the fact that his knife appeared to be too dull to accomplish his boot remodelling, he then he states that he had not been able to cut a piece of leather from his boot. So, which one was it?
Robeer, I agree, I don't think that the police felt that Mrs. Long was a credible witness.
Wolf. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Wolf, many thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response to my questions, especially regarding Richardson--I can see I need to reread his testimony with a more critical eye. You've also given me good reason to reconsider my thinking on Baxter v. Phillips, although I'm not sure I'm ready to desert Mr. Baxter just yet.
Coincidentally, Scott Medine, another fine poster, also put up some critical thoughts on Wynne Baxter as well. I'll have to do some backtracking through the archives to see if others also have misgivings over Baxter's performance as Coroner.
Thanks again, Wolf, for your reply. Sorry to have temporarily hijacked the thread!
Best,
David |
|
|
|
|
