|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 05 June 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Mystery PC of Mitre Square:
Archive through 05 June 2002
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 14 May 2002 - 05:28 pm |        | Moved from another thread:
_____________________________
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 14 May 2002 - 04:08 pm
_____________________________
Hello all,
While it is true that Schwartz's testimony was taken seriously at first, it appears that such belief in his story did not last. For instance, following the murder of Mary Kelly and Hutchinson's statement, the police began arresting men in astrakhan, and 'toffs' in general. Even more interesting is how the later memoirs of police and officials lists as the only credible witnesses Lawende, and unnamed City PC, or NOBODY. In fact, there was a police report (forgive me not having the particulars of it at this moment)contemporary with Schwartz's statement that stated the police didn't have the greatest of faith in his story.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
_____________________________
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 14 May 2002 - 04:44 pm
_____________________________
Tom,
Who could the 'unnamed City PC' possibly be?
None of the known City PCs ever claimed to see the suspect, yet this incident is mentioned over and over again by high ranking police officials. Did the City PD screw up a surveillance? Was the suspect spotted with Eddowes in Orange Market by a City undercover detective who lost sight of them with tragic consequences? Is this the unknown man who inquired if a couple had passed by into Mitre Square?
What is your take on this odd story with no obvious explanation?
Robeer |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 14 May 2002 - 07:54 pm | | CORRECTION: In my previous post I said there was a 'police report' that indicated the police were not wholly accepting of Schwartz's testimony; what I meant to say was that there was a 'newspaper' and NOT a 'police' report. My apologies.
Robeer,
I have a tenible theory as to the City PC, and will post on that soon. I would like to wait until I can access my sources to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting the facts.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 14 May 2002 - 08:29 pm | | Robeer,
Here's my VERY loose suggestion regarding the mysterious City PC. I would like to add that there are probably far better explanations, but I don't believe this one has been aired:
Readers of Ripper Notes will be familiar with an article in its current April 2002 issue by Scott Nelson entitled 'A Butcher's Row Suspect Revisited'. On page 29 Mr. Nelson quotes from a New York Times article of October 2nd, 1888 written by a London correspondent: 'The only trace considered of any value is the story of a watchboy who saw a man and a woman leave Aldgate station, going towards Mitre-square. The man returned shortly afterward alone. The police have a good description of him.'
The term 'watchboy' in this article does not necessarily defer that it was a youth who was the witness of the couple, as 'boy' was a common term for anyone in lower ends of service, and youths were rarely employed as watchman. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, most watchmen of the time were retired police officers. With this in mind, the 'watchboy' this article refers to was quite possibly a retired police constable. If he is the witness that has occasionally been referred to as a City PC, this would explain why. Once a cop, always a cop. The police were so tight-lipped at the time about the various clues they had come across, and so many records have been destroyed or gone missing, that we may never know anymore about the City PC than we do. In fact, it's quite possible, if not even likely, that there never was a Mitre Square City PC witness.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 14 May 2002 - 11:13 pm | | Tom,
Fascinating story I had not heard of before. Very plausible explanation. We had an extended discussion about this very topic on another thread we are currently locked out of. When I can get to it again I will try to move some of that discussion here for you to review.
From memory it seems the short list of possible explanations were:
1) An undercover City detective blew coverage of Eddowes and her customer. Horrified, the City PD kept this screw-up strictly confidential.
The possibility that Eddowes may have even been bait, either knowingly or unknowingly, was mentioned.
2) PC Harvey or PC Watkins saw the suspect but failed to act according to instructions and this negligence was hushed up for obvious reasons.
3) It was not a City PC that saw the suspect but a clandestine Met stakeout inside the City jurisdiction that encountered JtR. For political reasons this was explained as a 'City' PC who provided a detailed description of the suspect.
4) In a complete reverse of number 3, a City PC saw the suspect on Berner Street leaving the alley to Dutfield's Yard. This theory assumes the City and Met were cooperating in trading places to put an unfamiliar face on the street in plain clothes.
Beyond these possible explanations one is hard put to explain the identity of the City PC who 'saw' the suspect. Your story above certainly would fill the gap.
Robeer |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 15 May 2002 - 01:19 pm | | Hello All. The missing PC.
When we were researching for our book we met and spoke to the niece of Amos Simpson. We never mentioned to her anything about Mitre Square it was she who said that when her uncle was on special duties he picked up the shawl from the murdered woman in Mitre Square. She said he had told her he was the first on the scene. At first we were told by VARIOUS EXPERTS that there never was a policeman by the name of Amos Simpson in the Met. We thought that this elderly woman of 89 was telling the truth as she knew it, and was not trying to get any monetary gain from her story and the shawl, which is not like others we could name. And yes we found Amos and not only was he in the police, he was an acting sergeant at the time of the Ripper murders. Yes, you can pick holes in this story but it has a ring of authenticity. Amos Simpson was well remembered as an upright and honest member of the small village where he lived. He retired to the village after his long and distinguished career in the Met Police force.
Were the special duties mentioned above by Amos's niece, that of keeping surveillance on the Jewish meeting room in Mitre Square, that Sgt White tells of?
And was Amos Simpson part of his team? |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 15 May 2002 - 06:43 pm | | Andy and Sue,
Was there a Jewish meeting room in Mitre Square? I was not aware of this part of the story. Do you have more information about the name of the club or its exact location?
Robeer |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 15 May 2002 - 07:35 pm | | To all,
If the 'City PC' is the one referred to by MacNaghten in his memorandum, than the answer is simple. He didn't exist. It was nothing more than a mistake on the part of MacNaghten.
Any 'City PC' ever postulated to be this one has been connected with watching a Jewish suspect, and MacNaghten as we know favored Druitt. Simple error on his part but reveals that he is not the ultimate source on these matters as was thought some years ago.
STAN |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 15 May 2002 - 09:01 pm | | Stan,
Macnaghten is not the only one to mention this story. Assisstant Commissioner of the City Police Sir Henry Smith and head of the Met CID Sir Robert Anderson also make mention of this incident. I can see the Met possibly getting this story confused but not Smith who was acting Commissioner at the time of the murders.
Robeer |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 15 May 2002 - 10:28 pm | | Stan,
While I agree there is the possibility that there was some sort of confusion, as Robeer points out, it would have had to have been mass confusion among individuals who entertained different suspects but agree on this point. If it was just Macnaughten who put forth the City PC, we wouldn't still be discussing it today, due to him many factual errors, particularly the ones pertaining to Druitt.
Parlours,
The Amos Simpson story is interesting, and it is a good thing that you verified his existence. However, if he WERE the first person on the seen, why isn't he mentioned as such? He would have outranked the PCs that soon followed. And it seems very doubtful that he witnessed Jack the Ripper, otherwise he would certainly have mentioned that story to his family as well as the one involving the shawl.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 04:41 am | | Hello Robeer & Tom,
Yes, there was a Synagogue on the corner of Mitre Square it was called the Great Synagogue. Jewish radical groups were allowed to use the meeting rooms as long as they never discussed their business in the worship areas. Perhaps this is where Lawende, Levy and Harris had been that evening when they claimed to have seen Eddowes with a man.
If Sgt Amos Simpson, Sgt White and another were on special duties that night doing undercover surveillance on the Synagogue, we again have the old 'nutmeg' that Met Police were on City ground without authority from City Police HQ. And as Sgt White wrote later:----- one of the police officers came out of the house he had been in and walked a few paces into the darkness of the alley. "Hello! what is this?" he cried, and then called in startled tones for me to come. In the East End we are used to some shocking sights but the sight I saw made the blood in my veins turn to ice.
Sgt White then goes on to describe the discovery of a murdered woman.
A murder had been committed right under the noses of three policman. It is no wonder not one officer claimed to be in Mitre Square on that night.Hence, the story told by Amos Simpson years later does have a certain creedence about it.
Did his police instincts make him grab what he thought to be a vital piece of evidence i,e the shawl, thinking it could be used later on in the enquiries, and then thought better to keep quiet?
The shawl matches all the descriptions given by witnesses of what Eddowes was wearing that night. It is very large 8ftx2ft in fact and wrapped around the body it could easily have been mistaken for a dress. There are many torpedo shaped stains that have been dabbed out, the shape that blood splatters make. A whole corner has been cut away, this is where Amos told his niece it was soaked with blood! |
Author: Robeer
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 09:28 am | | Andy & Sue,
Did you get the feeling from talking to Simpson's niece that the entire family was aware of this story and was it ever recorded by any family members? Are there any direct descendents of Simpson still living that might have letters or notes on the events of that night? I have been contacted by a relative of Steve White. She is trying to get cousins in London to search for any family records, notes, or photos White may have had.
Robeer |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 01:14 pm | | Like others here I have long harboured grave doubts about this alleged shawl of Catherine Eddowes’. There are a number of sound reasons for this.
If we take Andy and Sue Parlour’s comment first that:- The shawl matches all the descriptions given by witnesses of what Eddowes was wearing that night. It is very large 8ftx2ft in fact and wrapped around the body it could easily have been mistaken for a dress”
Firstly, an 8-foot shawl? It sounds more like a different kind of garment altogether – if a garment at all.
Be that as it may, where is such a garment described in relation to Eddowes? The only possible place I’m aware of is in the East London Observer for 6th October 1888 which noted that, “Her dress was made of green chintz, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies.” This sounds broadly, though not exactly, like descriptions I have heard of the alleged shawl. However, even if the match were exact the newspaper’s description very clearly refers to a dress and not to a shawl.
Add to this the official list of Eddowes’ clothes and possessions, which only notes the following:- Chintz Skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut 6½ inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, back & front of skirt”. It then goes on to mention her wearing a brown linsey dress bodice.
In other words, very definitely a skirt, distinguishable by waistbands and buttons.
So for the shawl to have any credibility at all, its pattern would have to be a match that of the dress precisely, and we would have to accept that its existence was never recorded officially. All very unlikely: given the state of Eddowes’ other clothing and her economic circumstances it would be amazing if she owned any items that matched at all. Then there was no reason why the police wouldn’t have recorded Kate’s shawl, or any other piece of cloth belonging to her, if they had possession of it.
If Amos Simpson had picked up any article likely to have come from Eddowes’ person and failed to report it then he was committing a serious breach of discipline, since he would have been witholding valuable evidence. Why would he do that? After all he’d been promoted to acting Sergeant and his police career eventually spanned twenty-five years. Failing to report evidence in a sensational murder case is barely consistent with his long service record.
Even if the shawl could be shown to be genuinely Kate’s it makes no sense that it was picked up in Mitre Square, as is being discussed above.
We need to examine timings. With this murder, people have been in awe ever since at the killer’s speed. Assuming that JTR and Eddowes were the couple last seen by Lawende and friends at around 1:33 a.m., then the murderer had adjourned to Mitre Square, killed his victim, disembowelled her, removed the uterus and kidney, committed facial mutilations and made good his escape all in the space of eleven minutes. The odds of this occurring and of Amos Simpson discovering the body, but without seeing the murderer, removing clothing and disappearing without being seen by anybody would be astronomical. And that’s before we consider the movements of PC Harvey. Aside from which it’s all illogical – surely the reaction of anybody discovering a body in this state would be to call for help immediately.
Then we have the matter of location. Simpson served with Met Police. He would have been well inside the City Police area, which makes Mitre Square an unlikely place for him to be to start with. His presence there is even less likely when you consider that by that stage there had been no murder in the series committed within the City of London’s jurisdiction so the need for co-operation between the forces was not yet obvious.
Any attempt to tie the story of Amos Simpson and the shawl with the Stephen White story is going to be dangerous. The White story stems from a much later date (indeed after his death), and is fraught with problems. In no respect does the location described in that story match Mitre Square. Berner Street and Castle Alley would both be better candidates and it doesn’t match up very well with them either. It has all the hallmarks of being a composite story and a well spun yarn.
Even if one believes in the questionable provenance of the shawl, surely the only scenario that makes any sense would be that the murderer took it from the body and later dropped it and that Simpson picked it up somewhere within the Met’s jurisdiction. We know that the killer headed back into Met. territory from the piece of apron found in Goulston Street. The latter is a long way from Simpson's 'N' division, so the likelihood is that he had been drafted into the Whitechapel area for additional duties.
Personally, whilst I suspect that the 'shawl' may well have an interesting criminal history, it is far more likely to have come from a different case entirely.
Regards, V. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 01:20 pm | | The Great Synagogue, it's the Great Mosque now I believe, fronted onto Duke street and stood at the corner of Duke and Church passage. It was not in Mitre Square. In order to find the body, White's nonexistent police constable would have to have walked down the passage and across the Square. This hardly jives with walking "a few paces into the darkness of the alley" The fact that White's story bares no relationship to any of the murder sites or with the known facts should lead one to take the whole story with a massive grain of salt. The same can be said for the stories of Amos Simpson's family.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 01:58 pm | | Hi, Wolf:
There is a Great Mosque in the East End of London that occupies a building that once housed a synagogue, but it in Brick Lane not in Aldgate. An article on the web mentions that the Great Mosque in Brick Lane is a "one time Synagogue, one time Methodist Chapel, one time Huguenot Church." The same article has some interesting information on the present-day ethnic make-up and diversity of the East End. Viper can confirm this but I believe the building that was once the Great Synagogue on Duke's Place in Aldgate, and which was damaged in the Blitz in 1941, after which the congregation moved to the Marble Arch Synagogue at 32 Great Cumberland Place, W1, is vacant at this time.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Chris and Wolf,
Yes, can confirm that there is no mosque on Duke's Place. There is now just a boring 1970s(?) office building with a blue heritage plaque to mark where the Great Synagogue stood from 1690 until it was wrecked in the Blitz. It was rebuilt more than once during its life.
The building you are probably both thinking of is the Jamme Masjid Mosque at the corner of Brick Lane and Fournier Street (formerly Church St.) in Spitalfields. It started life around 1740 as a Huguenot church, became a Non-conformist church, then a headquarters for the movement which converted immigrant Jews to Christianity, next the New Synagogue and is now a mosque. A fascinating history!
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 May 2002 - 02:20 pm | | Hi, V:
Thanks for confirming that the Great Synagogue is no longer there, which I did not know, but that its site is occupied by a modern office building with a heritage plaque to mark where the Great Synagogue had stood. By the way, I have a pamphlet of pictures of the Jewish East End that contains one photograph that shows the blitz damage in the old Synagogue.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 17 May 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Chris and Viper,
you are absolutely correct, this is the same building that I was thinking of. Either way, it still does not stand in Mitre Square.
Wolf. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Monday, 20 May 2002 - 01:09 pm | | Hello all-
I wonder if it is not possible that Macnaghten's
"City PC" was Daniel Halse, who testified at the Eddowes inquest that he had "stopped 2 men who gave satisfactory account of themselves" in Wentworth Street minutes after the murder. I realize that Halse was a detective and not a PC, but he is the one City policeman who saw somebody near Mitre Square that night.
AAA88 |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 20 May 2002 - 02:28 pm | | Jesse,
Interesting question, but if they gave a satisfactory account of themselves why would they be suspects and which one of the two would the description be based upon, and why?
Robeer |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Monday, 20 May 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Well, if we assume that the "City PC" witness was not a figment of Macnaghten's imagination, Halse's sighting would seem to fit the bill best-better, certainly, than the highly dubious tales concerning Amos Simpson and Stephen White. As for the men giving a "satisfactory account" of themselves, one has to wonder exactly what this would have consisted of- often it only meant proving one's identity. It may be- and this is, of course, only speculation- that the two men were together and Halse, looking for a lone suspect, dismissed them out of hand (because, as we all know, it couldn't have been two men, could it?  ) In any case, Halse may have provided a description of the men to his superiors, descriptions which were among the City records later destroyed by the Luftwaffe or otherwise lost, and that one of them described a man resembling Kosminski.
AAA88 |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 20 May 2002 - 06:29 pm | | Robeer,
You might want to check out a thread I just opened on the book by Edwin T. Woodhall, who worked under Macnaughten. Although the work is severely flawed, Woodhall makes mention of a police witness in Mitre Square.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 20 May 2002 - 06:55 pm | | Jesse,
That is the closest thing yet to a police sighting. Can you tell us more about this incident? How far and which direction is Wentworth Street from Mitre Square? Is it in City or Met territory? How close to Goulston Street? Any descriptions from this encounter?
Robeer |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 12:10 am | | Sure, Robeer. Halse and two other detectives were patrolling near St Botolph's Church (the "prostitutes' church") at a couple of minutes before 2 when they heard of the Eddowes murder- they were the first detectives on the scene. They split up and searched in different directions, Halse heading in a northeasterly direction to Middlesex St. (Petticoat Lane) and Wentworth, where he stopped and (apparently briefly) questioned the two men.
Wentworth St. was in Met territory and it crossed the north end of Goulston St. ; the apron and the graffiti were found near this corner. Roughly estimating, I would say that the corner of Wentworth and Goulston was about 400 yards from where Kate Eddowes' body was found. Unfortunately Halse did not describe the men in his statement.
AAA88 |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 02:31 am | | Hi All,
If Macnaghten's City P.C. does exist -- and that's a big if -- D.C. Halse is rather a poor candidate. He was on site at Mitre Square minutes after the body was discovered, and was also on site in Goulston Street shortly after the apron and graffiti were discovered by P.C. Long. He played and active and prominent role in all of the events that night. He was also called at the inquest. Macnaghten knew the JtR case well. Halse was an important figure in the City's investigation. To confuse his actions into a siting of JtR seems unlikely.
Halse's dismissal of the two men he stopped in Wentworth Street was never overtly questioned at the inquest. Halse was a twenty-five year veteran of the force, who was almost fifty years old at the time. A man of his experience would not causally let two people go. I do not think he was looking for a lone killer, nor would he have been swayed by what they said independently of his obervations. Halse saw Eddowes in situ, and it is highly probable he checked the two for blood while he asked them to account for themselves. Since he found no blood, whatever they told him was satisfactory. If he had the slightest suspicion that they were involved, because of what he had seen in Mitre Square, he would have held them for the smallest of reasons. This was not the case.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 03:00 am | | Tom,
It just occurred to me the 'watchboy' on duty at Aldgate Station may have been a City undercover detective or one of several reserve officers called up to keep watch on all train stations, especially at night. This would strengthen the possibility of a City PC sighting that night, not at Mitre Square but near enough to be referred to as the 'Mitre Square sighting'. What do you think?
Robeer |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 08:19 am | | Jesse, Robeer et al,
Would the direction these two men were heading have any bearing upon Halses judgement to let them go ?
Monty
Unimportant perhaps, but Morris (Nightwatchman in Mitre sq) was a Met pensioner. Not city though...curses...back to the books. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 10:34 am | | Hello Christopher 'T' and all, re synagogues,
You all probably know this, but you are going to get it anyway.
While going through some of our old research material we came across info on two synagogues.
No 1, In the mid 16th century Jews from the central and eastern regions of europe arriving in London took nearly 50 years before they could afford a place of worship for there own sect of Judasism. They were from the Ashkenazi community.
It was they who built the synagogue in Duke's Place Mitre Square. It would be interesting to know if Lawende, Levy and Harris were of this sect, thus giving them reason to be there that night.
No 2, The synagogue in Brick Lane on the corner of Fournier Street, (Fournier coming from the Huguenot word to supply or furnish with)was originally a Huguenot chapel built by the French Protestants in 1743. In the 1790's it was taken over by the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews. Ten years later it became a Methodist chapel and remained so for nearly 80 years.
In 1897, it was re-consecrated, this time as the Great Synagogue for the Jews of the Machzike Hadath sect of eastern European Jews.
It was in 1976 the Bangladeshi community purchased and restored it to become the London Jamme Masjid Mosque.
Hope you find it interesting.
Andy & Sue P. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 03:36 pm | | Hi Monty,
It was just as important (and I'm sure he would have asked it) for Halse to know where the two men had just come from as well as where they were going.
As I said in my previous post, if there was even the slightest suspicion that they were involved, Halse would not have let them go. The fact that he did let them go and continued his frantic search of the neighborhood, including Met territory, suggests that the two men he let go are a non-clue.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 05:24 pm | | Hello Jack-
Since, as you say, "Macnaghten knew the JTR case well", it stands to reason that his belief that a "City PC" was the only person who may have gotten a good look at the murderer has some basis in fact. As you seem to be totally convinced that this could not possibly refer to DC Halse, I would be interested to hear your alternative explanation for Macnaghten's reference.
In passing, allow me to note that your speculations about what Halse did or didn't do with the two men are just that-speculations. He may have strip-searched them and thoroughly checked their alibis; then again he may have just questioned them briefly and hurried off, searching for a lone, blood-spattered madman. We simply do not know for sure- it's important to remember that. Given Halse's own account of the timing of his movements that night, though, he could not have spent more than a few minutes at most with the two men.
One further point. A look at the map and of Halse's route from Mitre Square to Goulston St. shows that his questioning of the men could not have taken place more than 100 yards from the doorway where the bloody apron was found. It has often been postulated that the apron was there when Halse first passed the doorway at 2:20 but that he missed it. If it was there, and he had found it that first time, one wonders if he might not have had second thoughts about the men he had just let go. Indeed, such suspicions may have occurred to other officers later on; it would be somewhat egotistical of us to suppose that the policemen of that time were incapable of making such deductions. If so they certainly would not be aired publicly; but a private, in-house memorandum might be an entirely different story.
AAA88 |
Author: Stan Russo
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 07:17 pm | | Andy and Sue,
I have a question pertaining to the suspect you presented. Please e-mail me at jsduker@aol.com.
STAN |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 21 May 2002 - 08:47 pm | | Hi Jesse,
Of course I'm speculating. In the absence of primary source material, it is what we all do.
Your post is no different than mine when you speak of Halse possibly missing the apron at 2:20am and having second thoughts about letting the men go. When we speculate, or hypothesize, we sometimes come to some interesting conclusions.
My explanation of how Halse dealt with the two men he came across in Wentworth Street I think is very reasonable.
Macnaghten's City P.C. creates two problems. I did state that he knew the case well, but he made numerous errors. A reading of his memoranda (the City P.C is mentioned in the Aberconway version) clearly shows this to be the case. Problem number two, as you have already noted, Jesse, is that City files were destoyed during WWII.
Please don't put words like convinced in my mouth, Jesse, I just said Halse was a poor candidate. Halse was so high profile that I don't think Macnaghten could have confused him that badly. There were many people in and around Mitre Square that night in an official capacity. I'm sure there were officers there that were only mentioned in City police files. Perhaps one of these City P.C.'s saw somebody suspicious in St. James Place (or Duke St., Aldgate St., Leadenhall st. etc.), the City would have investigated and followed up. It could be that this was all that Macnaghten was referring to. Some have suggested that he mistakenly meant a Met policeman rather than a City one, with P.C. Smith's name being put forward as he mixed the events of September 29/30. This is possible but very problematic. Though Smith is a poor candidate also, he is slightly above Halse, as he actually furnished a description of the man he saw with Stride.
In the official version, Macnaghten writes that "no one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer."
This version, of course, was written after the Aberconway draft (I can't remember if the same line appears in the Aberconway draft), suggesting that maybe he had more time to think about what he had written in relation to Kosminski's desciption matching that of a City P.C. near Mitre Square.
"If Macnaghten's City P.C. does exist -- and that's a big if..." was how I started my first post on this thread, and I continue to stand by it. Because the City files do not exist, there is nothing to corroborate Macnaghten, which makes his P.C. unidentifiable at this point, if he ever existed.
All we can do is speculate.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 22 May 2002 - 03:48 am | | To add more fuel to the fire a quote by Major Arthur Griffiths:
from Dissertations: Major Arthur Griffiths, Dr. Robert Anderson, and Jack the Ripper Stewart P. Evans
Quote:One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined to an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court.
Notice he misspoke calling it Mitre Court instead of Mitre Square.
Darn, if only he would have called it Mitre Cul-de-Sac!
Robeer |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 22 May 2002 - 07:56 am | | Jack,
I agree. I cannot believe Halse would have been anything but professional..especially when you consider that another body had just been found minutes earlier.
Monty
|
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 22 May 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Alright then, John, let's winnow away the opinions and speculations and center on the hard facts to emerge from this discussion.
Fact #1- Melville Macnaghten was highly knowledgable about the Ripper case. It would probably be fair to say that he knew more about it than you or I ever will.
Fact #2- Macnaghten at some point stated in writing his belief that a City constable, patrolling near Mitre Square, may have been the only person ever to have seen the murderer.(I have seen some argue that Lady Aberconway's version was a forgery, but let us remain on planet Earth for the time being).
Fact #3- Detective Constable Halse of the City police, who had been patrolling near Mitre Square, stopped and questioned two men in Wentworth St. shortly after the discovery of Katherine Eddowes' corpse. He is the only City constable known to have reported seeing anyone suspicious that night.
I do not state categorically that Halse is the policeman in question, or even that Macnaghten could not have been mistaken about this detail. I do stress that the above are facts, not speculation. As an aside, I would also note that the notion that PC Smith (who was not a City officer and was nowhere near Mitre Square) fits Macnaghten's description better than Halse to be simply laughable, in that the well-dressed, clean-shaven man he saw could not possibly have borne any resemblance to a man who ate out of the gutter and refused to wash himself. Nevertheless, facts can be (and are) interpreted in any number of ways- which is fine, so long as the line between fact and speculation remains firmly unblurred.
Cheers
AAA88 |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 23 May 2002 - 12:47 am | | Hi Jesse,
I agree firmly with your three facts. But since these are not the only facts, they tell us nothing.
Fact - There are at least two versions of the Macnaghten memoranda. They are not identical.
Fact - There are factual errors regarding the Whitechapel murders in both versions eg. "there was no doubt but that the man was disturbed by some Jews who drove up to a club..."
Fact - Halse was never asked for a description at the inquest of the two men he detained by either the jury or Coroner Crawford.
Fact - The only Policeman to furnish a description of a person seen in the company of any of the two victims September 29/30 is P.C. Smith.
Fact - In the only lengthy, detailed City Police report filed at the Home Office (October 27, 1888 - which Macnaghten had access to), Inspector McWillaim does not mention any City P.C seeing or stopping anyone near Mitre Square. D.C. Halse is mentioned several times in this report.
Fact - Macnaghten's City P.C. identification is unsupported by any other officers or official documents thus far.
Fact - There is no known physical description of Kosminski's appearance, nor of his the state of his mental health in 1888. References to Kosminski are post-1888.
Fact - We do not know for certain if Macnaghten's Kosminski (and Anderson and Swanson's Polish Jew, Kosminski) is Aaron Kosminski and not someone else.
Now you can throw out more facts, and I can do likewise. At the end of the day, though, all facts are open to interpretation.
"Nevertheless, facts can be (and are) interpreted in any number of ways- which is fine, so long as the line between fact and speculation remains firmly unblurred."
This statement at the end of your last post is a contradiction, Jesse. In a perfect world it would be absolutely correct, but the blurring occurs long before you or I speculate. The graffiti, the memoranda, and the marginalia are all fine examples of blurring.
Each of us weigh the facts as we see them, attaching more importance to some than others, which, in turn, leads us to draw conclusions. Since we are never in possession of all the facts, judge them differently, and are ignorant of some, we will end up with differing opinions.
Just so it is known exactly where I stand: this is my interpretation of the facts (and let me be the first one to say that I may be wrong):
I do not believe a City P.C. ever saw a man matching "Kosminski's" description near Mitre Square around the time of Eddowes' discovery. I believe that Macnaghten is confusing it with something else, or misremembering the details. I will, however, keep an open mind. New evidence, or a strong enough theory may pursuade me that Macnaghten was right.
If he was right, I do not see any good candidates as his City P.C.. Halse does not match, neither does Smith. I think we both agree on this point, Jesse. Where we differ is that you attach more significance than I do to Halse stopping two men in Wentworth Street.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 12:11 am | | Jessie/John,
Would either of you care to include the PC Robert Spicer story into this debate as a candidate for the 'mysterious PC of Mitre Square'? His story can be found on Police Officials: General Discussion: P.C. Robert Spicer. The story is bizarre and stretches credulity but "Truth is stranger than Fiction." Supposedly Spicer resigned from the Met in frustration over this alleged incident.
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 01:41 am | | Stan Russo,
I noticed on another thread you are in the process of writing a book on this case. I was sure that acting City Commissioner of Police Major Henry Smith had mentioned the City PC sighting at Mitre Square. Knowing you would need the source of this information to footnote your book I have searched for the origin of that comment but can find nowhere Smith is quoted as having mentioned this incident. Nor can I find where Anderson directly mentions it either. If anyone knows where either can be directly quoted on this incident please be so kind as to let us know.
After reading many discussions and dissertations it is entirely possible I confused comments of Sir Henry Smith with Sir Arthur Griffiths, or to put it another way, Major Henry Smith with Major Arthur Griffiths. It is significant that Griffiths was an intimate friend of both Macnaghten and Anderson, so his knowledge of the case should be well informed. Macnaghten joined the Met after 1888 therefore any information must have been provided by officers actually involved in the investigation, which certainly would include his superior, Anderson. In addition, Macnaghten and Monro were old friends.
It would make sense that Macnaghten would be brought up to speed on this case in short order and the fact it was an open case under his watch it would be logical he would take an active and ongoing interest in solving this famous mystery. It would certainly be a huge feather in his cap and a tremendous boost to his career.
You might wish to research the relationship of Macnaghten and Monro further because there is a intriguing coincidence of a connection to Dorset and the Druitt family. This relationship was discussed on a thread that was unfortunately lost in the December crash.
I would not underestimate the influence of the Masonic Order in 1888. There has been much discussion of this subject on the Message Board. There is an curious story that persists in Texas history that Santa Ana was about to be hanged by the victorious Texan army when he managed to communicate a Masonic hand signal to General Sam Houston. Stunned by this secret signal Houston changed his mind and allowed Santa Ana to live. There have been other reasons put forth as to why Houston allowed Santa Ana to live that day, but it is an interesting story demonstrating the powerful influence of this secret order that many believe this story could be true.
By the way, Major Arthur Griffiths wrote a famous book about Napoleon that is still in print and available on the internet. Griffiths was an avid student of famous criminal cases and apparently was well educated. With his close relationship to Anderson and Macnaghten it is hard to believe he would be taken in by any fanciful stories that he could easily check out with his private sources within the Met.
One would think his contacts were broader within the London law enforcement community than just the two officers mentioned. While I have never seen it confirmed it would not be surprising to find that Griffiths would have access to Sir Henry Smith for his opinions and knowledge of a case as famous as this that overlapped both jurisdictions. Perhaps anyone who read Griffiths' book, Mysteries of Police and Crime (1898) might care to comment on this subject.
In conclusion, it just doesn't seem likely that Macnagthen would invent a story like the City PC making visual contact with JtR when both Anderson and Smith could deny any knowledge or even contradict this claim publicly. The same goes for Griffiths. Common sense would argue that both must have accepted the story as having derived from common knowledge and why risk the professional embarrassment of being refuted? Just food for thought. Good luck on your book.
Robeer |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 04:47 am | | Robeer, excellent post. You are correct re Masonic influence. My source of history of the craft has been a leading mason for nearly 50 years and very high up the ladder. He has often told me of times when he has been stopped by the police and after giving some sign has been told to move on.
He is one of the leading lecturers on the craft and its history but age is now taking over and his eyesight is failing,but when talking of the Whitechapel murders he will say that the story has always been that the Bretheren were told at the time to 'CLOSE RANKS AROUND THE DOCTOR'.
I do not necessarily think the masons committed the crimes but whoever did had enough knowledge of masonic ritual to implicate them. There are far too many symbolistic meanings involved within the murders to simply dismiss this. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 04:53 am | | Robeer, excellent post. You are correct re Masonic influence. My source of history of the craft has been a leading mason for nearly 50 years and very high up the ladder. He has often told me of times when he has been stopped by the police and after giving some sign has been told to move on.
He is one of the leading lecturers on the craft and its history but age is now taking over and his eyesight is failing,but when talking of the Whitechapel murders he will say that the story has always been that the Bretheren were told at the time to 'CLOSE RANKS AROUND THE DOCTOR'.
I do not necessarily think the masons committed the crimes but whoever did had enough knowledge of masonic ritual to implicate them. There are far too many symbolistic meanings involved within the murders to simply dismiss this. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 07:37 am | | Hi Robeer!
I don't think you're incorrect in thinking Smith had something useful to say about the City beat policing that night. Unfortunately, (i) I don't possess 'From Constable to Commissioner', and my file on Smith for some unknown reason contains just one photocopied page from his memoirs giving the start of his discussion of the case, and one notebook sheet with my pencil note of a letter of his confirming having searched all butchers' shops looking for knives. So I'm working from memory of something I last read more than 10 years ago. (ii) Smith's comment is, as I recall, somewhat eliptical, and it's only by puzzling into what he is apparently implying that one can see what he seems to be saying.
But I think he makes a bluff apology for being about to criticize his men, saying he's praised them often enough; and then goes on to say that on the night of the double murder if they'd followed his instructions to the letter (and he doesn't deny they followed them in spirit) they would have trapped the man in Mitre Square. I THINK my recollection is right that there is some other sentence or implication in the memoirs which, coupled with that remark, suggests that Smith knew of a City policeman who had seen a lone man with a woman and, I'm sure I felt he implied that they had not been followed to their destination as he would have preferred. My guess was that his orders were to leave the beat and follow any suspicious looking man with a woman, and some City PC hadn't done so. (But beware of all this reconstruction ab mente Fidonis. It aint evidence. No scenarios are. Find Smith's remarks yourself and put your own construction on them, and thereafter keep in mind carefully what is Smith and what is Robeerian deduction).
I did not, however, form the impression that this City PC was likely to be Anderson's witness or even confirmation that Macnaghten was right in suggesting that a City PC gave the preferred description of the suspect near Mitre Court. For elsewhere in his account Smith says very clearly that he had an excellent description from a witness whose refusal to be overconfident about his ability to recognize the man again proved his reliabiity and veracity. Since he also said the witness was something like a 'hybrid German foreigner' (or words to that effect) it seemed to me pretty certain that he was talking about Lawende, the {German?) Jew who was not sure that he wouild recognize his man again. Reasons of space prevented me from detailing all this in 'The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper'. But I really do recommend that you go back to Smith's memoirs, always bearing in mind that you're dealing with a character who embroiders in an extraordinary self-inflating way (and is actually saying here 'Jack would have been caught if my orders had been followed properly' - not something you need necessarily believe).
Rule of thumb with historical evidence from people like Smith; look for something somewhere else to corroborate what they are saying, and unless you have reason to believe that they were close drinking buddies or co-conspirators with some other unreliable witness, accept them as confirmation that SOMETHING positive underlies what seems to be so garbled or unlikely a story that you wouldn't care to trust it on its own. And consider plausibility always. (Thus, Smith's elaborate story of being summoned out to a meeting with a man he believed might have been the perpetrator, but who failed to turn up though I think Smith thought he might have been watching him in the darkness, is a chiller with a nice starring role for Smith, but no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there was anything but a hoaxer or a misunderstood report behind it. But Smith usefully supports the other claims that there was police interest in an alleged two farthings found with Annie Chapman's body, atthe same time supporting ourt dfinite knowedge that the police were interested in the idea of mad medical students. And over Mitre Square he usefully supports Macnaghten's recollection that the City police, a City PC and an identification by a witnes in the vicinity of the Square all played a part in police thinking aboutthe Polish Jew suspect, even though he's jolly imprecise about the details.
Keep looking!
All the best,
Martin F
Allthe best,
Martin F |
|
|
|
|
