|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Mystery PC of Mitre Square:
Archive through 09 June 2002
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 08:38 am |        | Robeer,
I am currently writing a book on the subject, but I am not familiar with the post you are referring to. It appears to be in regards to 'the City PC in Mitre Square', written about by MacNaghten. If so here are my opinions.
There has been no City PC who ever saw 'JTR' recorded in any police file. He is mentioned in print by MacNaghten. As we know MacNaghten played no part in the Mitre Square investigation, yet we also know he was somewhat of a bothersome person, especially to Anderson. He constantly gathered and collected known information on this case which he took no active part in. So where did he get this information about the City PC from?
Major Henry Smith was not Major Arthur Griffiths. They were two separate people. Smith has been labeled somewhat of a braggard, and there are passages within his text which back this up. Therein lies the problem with dealing with Henry Smith as a source. If you want to use him to back up evidence regarding anyone, there are those who will condemn him as nothing more than a braggard, and conversely if you want to condemn him to further advance a thought, there are those who will say he is too valuable of a source to dismiss him. He becomes the perfect catch-22. According to what I know about his thoughts on the case, he never thought there was a City PC who ever got a good enough look at the murderer.
So where did MacNaghten get this information? Probably from the person he got most of his information from, Anderson. Despite Swanson stating that MacNaghten 'vexed' Anderson, presumably over some letter, Anderson apparently offered up information to MacNaghten on the case, or conversely MacNaghten may have simply went into Anderson's office and 'lifted' it. I have previously discussed not taking Anderson's word on this apparent ID, which ultimately gives us the 'Polish Jew' suspect, unnamed by Anderson of course. The followers of Anderson are hesitant to accepte that Anderson could have either been leading MacNaghten down the wrong path, or simply made the whole ID up. Anderson's history with contributing with direct lies regarding Charles Stewart Parnell condoning the Phoenix Park Murders in 1882 shows him in a 'positively' negative light, yet his unsupported ID is still viewed as somewhat of a 'holy grail'. Swanson did support this ID but if you read closely what Swanson wrote about the ID, it becomes clearer and clearer that Swanson was not at this ID, and obviously was told his information from Anderson. But Back to MacNaghten.
MacNaghten somehow knew the name Kosminski. This can be a direct link to Anderson telling him this name. In his original first draft, MacNaghten mentions a 'Polish Jew cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron'. This evolved into Kosminski, and never before this did Anderson ever make mention to a 'Polish Jew' suspect on record. To convince MacNaghten, who by now had cemented his belief in Druitt, Anderson may have told him that his suspect was also seen by a 'City PC' in Mitre Square.
The main question is if there was a 'City PC' who saw the murderer, why was he never brought to justice? The answer is because there was no 'City PC' who saw the murderer. It could have been Anderson 'inventing' to support his own theory, or MacNaghten mistaking him with PC Smith, and getting the location wrong. With the police especially, any evidence like this really should be backed up by some sort of police file or account within a file. Or it should definitely challenged.
STAN |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 10:16 am | | Martin,
Thanks for the backup on this subject. I hoped I had not dreamed it up thinking Smith had something to say on this incident. Thanks for jogging my memory because I do remember Smith making the point had his men followed instructions that night the killer would have been caught. This statement implies that a couple had been spotted by one of his men but the suspect in question was not challenged and questioned according to procedure. This makes us wonder if Smith is referring to a uniformed PC or one of the many plain clothes undercover officers Smith mentions were deployed on the street.
I immediately think of the Orange Market incident where a man inquired about a couple that may have passed through St. James Passage. Orange Market would have been a logical place to position an undercover PC who could easily blend in with the crowd. A newspaper account indicated vendors at the market got a good look at the couple. The undercover PC may have got a good look at them too.
Since many night watchmen were former policemen could they have been employed in this effort? One would assume they were instinctively more observant during the terror on the streets. Tom Wescott mentioned a couple was spotted at Aldgate station by a 'watchboy'. He suggests many of these were former policemen. It may be that reserve policemen were posted undercover at train stations on the late night shift to watch for JtR. The couple who was observed leaving the station and later only the man returned could be what Smith is complaining about.
Smith's curious comments plus Macnaghten's reference to a City PC sighting causes us to wonder if there was a major screw up that night on the part of the City PD and this negligence was hushed up for obvious reasons. Could it be that PC Harvey actually saw the couple in Mitre Square but decided because they were laughing together everything seemed to be OK?
Robeer |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 06:03 pm | | Hi All,
Thanks for your posts, Robeer.
Martin, thank you for your "Fidoisms."
And Stan, thanks, as always, for letting us know where you stand.
When it comes to the comments of Major Griffiths in 'Mysteries of Police and Crime,' (which I do possess) there is little doubt that his information about the JtR case comes from Macnaghten. It is so close to the memoranda that I am sure Macnagten showed his good friend a copy of this document for the book.
Like you, Martin, I do not have Major Smith's memoirs. I will have to check on this, but I do not remember him stating who saw the murderer only that he had a 'fair description' of him. Someone who has a copy is definitely going to have to look this up. If he was basing his description on that given by a City P.C., I still do not believe this is where Macnaghten received his information. It must be remembered that Macnaghten was very critical of Major Smith's memoirs.
As for your theory, Stan, about Macnaghten receiving his information from Anderson, this is circumspect. Macnaghten, as we all know, was not part of the canonical investigation, but was involved, as the investigation of the crimes did not cease with Kelly. It is much more likely that he simply read the files. Anderson may have told him some things but Macnaghten took a very keen interest in the case, even keeping victims' photographs in his desk. I think it very possible that Macnaghten was one of the first people to purloin souvenirs from the official files. But that really isn't relevant to this discussion. After reading through the entire case -- adding this to whatever he discussed with Anderson, Swanson, Monro et al -- he puts his thoughts on paper in response to the press' reaction to Cutbush in 1894. This is sufficient time to confuse some of the details regarding the case. Most of this confusion, when reading the memoranda comes from the night of the double-event, where he clearly transposes a couple of the events that night. None of us have Smith's memoirs at hand, but there is a good chance we are making small errors (or even large ones)remembering what he wrote.
There is nothing reliable backing up Macnaghten's assertion that a City P.C. described anyone near Mitre Square, and that he is confusing it with P.C. Smith's description in Berner Street, or something else entirely.
What I do find fascinating is that Macnaghten says of Kosminski: "this man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square." It suggests he knew what Kosminski looked like. How did he know? 1) He seen him in person. Not likely as Kosminski was safely locked away, and there is nothing to indicate he knew about Anderson's ID. 2) Anderson told him. No way of knowing. 3) Kosminski was in the now missing suspects file. Very likely. This file would have contained a description of Kosminski, and any evidence or circumstances that lead anyone to believe he may be involved in the killings.
A quick coment about Sagar, and Spicer. Since the details of neither story has yet to be proven correct, they cannot be used to verify Macnaghten's statement. It is unwise to use one disputed story to match another disputed story.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 09:55 pm | | John,
Thanks for your detailed response. It is most helpful. Somewhere I read that Griffiths was a friend of both Macnaghten and Anderson. Evidently Macnaghten and Anderson did not care for each other and the relationship was somewhat strained. Macnaghten and Monro were old friends from India.
It seems plausible that Griffiths would be able to rely on all three for inside information pertaining to this famous case. If this was the case Griffiths had the opportunity to verify key information by inquiring of each their opinion as to any given event or theory.
I would guess that Griffiths might even have access to Sir Henry Smith but if there was a coolness between Smith and Anderson then Smith may be guarded in how much he would confide in Griffiths knowing him to be a close friend of Anderson. It would also seem likely Griffiths would cultivate a friendship with other Met detectives. The point is Griffiths had plenty of resources to verify any information he received as to this famous case. This may assume too much in that while friends with Anderson he may not have considered Griffiths a confidant to share information with, so the primary source may have indeed been Macnaghten.
Griffiths appears to be both intelligent and experienced so it is hard to believe he would repeat a story in print that he did not have a high degree of confidence in. His personal reputation would be at stake. And why would Macnaghten invent a story about a City PC? That seems risky if not downright reckless.
One aspect that may be confusing is when did the Macnaghten story first appear in print? Was Griffiths the first to use the story? Were Smith and Anderson still alive and did they have an opportunity to refute this story? If so, did they and if not, why not?
If Macnaghten was not well liked by Anderson or Smith it seems neither would hesitate to dispute this story if it had no basis in fact. Does their silence indicate there was some substance to this story?
Robeer |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 02:27 am | | Hi Robeer,
I don't know enough about the relationships to know how it effected the flow of information amongst them. There are plenty of people in my life that I don't like that I share information with. In 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' Griffiths would have used many sources, but when it comes to his comments about JtR, the views he expresses and the information he gives doesn't match Anderson or Smith but closely parallels the Macnaghten memoranda: "One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murders, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in 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." (p34 Vol. I)
This repeats -- almost exactly -- the information taken from the Aberconway version of the memoranda. Which is why I suggest that Macnaghten had shown it to Griffiths. Note that the Macnaghten memoranda in the official files drops the reference to City P.C., and the description matching Kosminski.
Why mention this in one version and not the other? Did he think it over and realize he had made a mistake? I don't think for one moment that Macnaghten made the City P.C. story up. I do think he confused it for some reason. Since all Scotland Yard files are confidential, leaving it out of the official version would serve no purpose.
As far as I know, Griffiths was the first to mention the City P.C. in 1898. Smith (1910), Anderson (1907, and 1910), and Macnaghten (1914) all wrote there memoirs after this. As to your question, Robeer, why didn't they refute it? Anderson had no need to refute it. He had his own ideas (which have come under seige on these boards recently). Smith didn't have the same level of access to information and doesn't even try to refute it. In one respect he corroborates it when he said he had a fair description of the man the night he allegedly chased him. Smith, as has been previously noted, however, is a fanciful storyteller. What Anderson, Smith, or anyone else believed or wrote about in their memoirs have little bearing on whether or not Macnaghten is correct because no one in a position to know anything has refuted or verified the City P.C. description.
Martin may correct me on this point if I'm wrong, but I believe Dan Farson was the first person to see the Aberconway version of the memoranda, and the first non-contemporary writer to publish Macnaghten's reference to the City P.C..
Off to check my copy of Farson...
(addendum) Page 109 of the paperback edition mentions the P.C. sighting near Mitre Square, quoting directly from the Aberconway version.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Robeer
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 03:30 am | | John,
Many thanks. It appears Griffiths is repeating Macnaghten almost word for word. Is there any indication in his memoirs he made an effort to verify this information with other sources?
The mention of a City PC by the Met Top Brass is perplexing. What is the motivation for relying on this story? Smith seems to allude to it in a roundabout way. I get this bad feeling somehow the City PD screwed up and a victim died because of it. That would be a logical reason to keep the story from becoming public knowledge.
The man in a suit at Orange Market who inquired about the couple and if they passed into St. James Passage must have been a City undercover PC. It is entirely possible he had them under surveillance, then lost them with tragic results. I'm betting he saw them plus interviewed vendors after the body was discovered. This sighting would give the brass a high degree of confidence in the description. It would make sense and answer a lot of questions. This would certainly explain why Smith would have been upset that Macnaghten found out about it and refused to confirm or refute it in later years.
It is either this explanation or Harvey might have screwed up by not checking on the interior of Mitre Square or if he did, its possible he saw the couple but decided they were safe enough and went on his way. It has been insinuated that Harvey had a drinking problem and was let go a few months after this murder. One can only wonder if either of the possibilities mentioned above did take place, did the drinking get worse because of his remorse? It is also entirely possible Harvey did everything correctly that night but still missed seeing the couple in the shadows.
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 03:41 am | | Does anyone know how much prostitution was tolerated in the City jurisdiction? Was it confined mostly to the Mitre Square area?
Was Church Passage a covered alleyway in 1888?
How did PC's on their beat take care of the call of nature in 1888?
Were both City and Met PC's required to carry a pocket watch? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 08:08 am | | You're right, John. Farson was shown the Aberconway version while making a television documentary involving Lady A. He came out with it (with Druitt's name reduced to initials) on television. Then Tom Cullen followed up with a book before Dan could write his: Dan was furious that Rediffusion clerk had given away his file of Ripper material to a purloiner who simply turned up at the office claiming to be a researcher sent to collect it. Dan never saw it again. He was still more furious when Cullen's book appeared, describing an incident that was only known from Dan's pre-programme research interviews, but which had not been used on the programme, showing that Dan's material had wound up in Cullen's hands.
This meant, however, that for many of us above a certain age, Tom Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror' was the real introduction to Macnaghten's notes.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 08:27 am | | Hello Robeer-
Although I have seen this assertion made more than once, I know of no reason whatever to suppose that Harvey had a drinking problem. He was dismissed from the force, but as far as I know the reasons for his dismissal remain unknown.
As far as Harvey's responsibility for the interior of Mitre Square, he told the Eddowes inquest (in the presence of his superiors Major Smith, Superintendant Foster and Inspector McWilliam) that his beat only took him as far as the end of Church Passage, a statement that was disputed by no one at the time.
AAA88 |
Author: Robin A. Lacey
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 10:06 am | | Hi all,
Could somebody here clear a sticking point for me?
In Victorian England plain clothes/undercover police officers (Metropolitan and City) were also referred to as 'private detectives.'
Is this true?
Many thanks,
Robin |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 05:08 pm | | Martin,
This question might be right up your alley. Why did it take so long for Kosminski to be officially named as a suspect after 1959? I might be missing something from the books of the 1960's and 1970's but we know that Frason knew the names of all three suspects from Lady A. This is proved by Donald McCormick using Ostrog as an alias for his suspect Konovalov.
I understand why Farson and Cullen used M.J.D. because he was MacNaghten's preferred suspect, and why McCormick used Ostrog, the 3rd suspect. Why did everyone skip over Kosminski?
STAN |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 07:02 pm | | If the PC was a City policeman then that would rule out Steve White , as he was a man from the Met.
As to White , I remember Stewart ( Evans ) posting an obituary from another newspaper about White which stated he did not see the killer at all , so there are two versions of the story.
I wonder , might there be papers in the public record office relating to observations of anarchists in East London in 1888 ? One might find some reports by White in them.
Also is there any personal information about White that we have available - place of birth , married , children , place of death etc ? |
Author: Robeer
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 07:14 pm | | Simon,
I'm looking for the same information. One source indicates that Stephen White was married to Olive Fletcher, they lived in Lambeth, and had two children, a son and daughter. The daughter's name was Edith and the name of the son is unkown.
There is a record of Stephen Charles N. White who married in London City in 1877. If this is the same he would have been 23 years old at the time. I'm not sure if that is young by the standards of that era or not. There is a Stephen Edward White who also married in 1877 in Eastbourne. Not sure if that is close to London or not.
A Stephen George White was born in 1883 in Lambeth. This could be the son of Stephen White and Olive Fletcher if they did wed in 1877.
Perhaps you can prevail upon Peter Birchwood to help research the census data on the White family. Can you check the London cemeteries to find where White is buried?
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 02:17 am | | Anyone,
I can't get an answer if pocket watches were a standard issue required of Met and City PCs. We respond to the PC testimony as if they all carried track and field stop watches. Having served on a criminal jury we learned rather quickly don't depend too much on witness time estimates. Here's why: if a witness says "about ten minutes" that could mean 8 to 12 minutes and a possible error of 4 minutes. If a witness said "about 15 minutes" that could be 12 to 18 minutes and an error of 6 minutes. If the witness says "about 20 minutes" then that could mean 15 to 25 minutes with an error of 10 minutes, and so on.
On a cold, wet night most normal human beings are looking for shelter, warmth, and a hot toddy. Constables are no different. If a constable could tarry a bit longer out of the elements then no harm done. They figure not many criminals are out in the inclement weather either. If a free cup of hot coffee or tea is offered then they would thankfully accept and chat just a bit about the madman on the loose in the East End. A shot of whiskey might improve the flavor and the conversation as well.
Let's assume both Harvey and Watkins reacted in this very human manner on the night in question. If both were ten minutes behind schedule then would JtR have enough time to murder and mutilate Eddowes and escape? Could it be both fudged the time they actually entered the square by estimating the time they should have been there?
Otherwise if both are telling the truth and have the times accurate JtR must have been done and gone before Harvey examined the square and he simply missed seeing Eddowes emaciated body lying in a heap on the sidewalk. I believe that Watkins testified when he first saw the body he thought it was a pile of rags someone had dumped on the ground. From a greater distance Harvey could have thought the same thing and not bothered to investigate further.
This is the only plausible explanation other than JtR was an experienced hunter who could field dress a kill in less than 5 minutes. If JtR was wearing rubber golashes that night then maybe we need to be looking for a hunter or outdoorsman who was handy with a knife.
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 07 June 2002 - 07:19 am | | Robeer,
Pocket watches were not standard issue. I think it was Harvey who said he timed his beat movements by the clock at Aldgate. I have read that the music-hall song 'If you want to know the time ask a policeman:/ Every member of the force/ Has a watch and chain of course' represents working class suspicion that the police routinely pinched watches from drunks. I cannot guarantee the truth of the claim that this was believed or the song reflects the belief (Andy Aliffe is the likely authority there).
Hi Stan,
Well, McCormick had completed all his work before Farson publicized the Aberconway copy of Managhten's memoranda, and his first edition doesn't name Ostrog. His second slips the name in with the pretentious and pseudo-knowledgeable observation that his name must have been Mihaul not Michael, and so McCormick claims support from Macnaghten. (Slippery devil!) Farson, Cullen and Howells/Skinner all assumed that Macnaghten's self-proclaimed deliberations, coupled with his obvious access to information now lost, meant that his conclusion should be accepted and his remarks about two other suspects could be ignored since he had ruled them out. Rumbelow took the view that Macnaghten's personal preference and his three named suspects were the tip of an enormous iceberg; that there was no reason to suppose that any of them were really hot tips, and so he didn't follow up any, since he believed (and may still believe) that the identification of Jack the Ripper is going to surprise us all on the Day of Judgement. Whittington-Egan and Odell both gave a sympathetic nod to Anderson's suspect's plausibility, with a deeply regretful or critical observation that he gave no evidence whatsoever to support what might just have been a piece of wild prejudice. Stephen Knight starts the very bad habit of furiously rubbishing everybody else's work in order to made way for his own theory. Melvin Harris didn't look at Macnaghten's suspects because he was investigating hoaxers and deceivers, and while Macnaghten might have been wrong, he obviously didn't fall under that heading. And that deals with all the books appearing between Dan's discovery of the memoranda and my tracing Kosminsky.
The thing that really surprised me about those writers (except Howells/Skinner and Harris, who were writing at the same time as me, but whose work I didn't see until my own came out) was that none of them noted the obvious identity between Anderson's Polish Jew and Macnaghten's Kosminsky; and none of them questioned the extraordinarily fast police abandonment of the Leather Apron search after Pizer had been proved innocent of the murders, but never identified by the prostitutes who questioned him and ultimately cleared of the supposed Violenia identification. (Don addressed this last point, and was praised by Richard W-E for doing so). Since my own careful study of all contemporary sources claiming to know, or to know the impossibiity of knowing the Ripper's identity, had resoundingly concluded that Anderson was the only one likely to be right on the grounds of potential knowledgeability, personal reliability, and the general likelihood of the story he advanced, I immediately started looking for a Kosminsky in the infirmary or asylum records. Later I learned that Martin Howells had also spotted that Anderson and Macnaghten must have been talking about the same man, but rejected his own insight deferring to Don's proposal that Anderson's suspect must have been Pizer and his witness Violenia. And, of course, equally unknown to Howells and me, Paul Begg was beavering away in the same direction.
(And by the way, since Paul and I have now both posted abbreviated accounts of my work which suggest that I could have found Kosminsky; found him wanting; and started an irresponsible search for an alternative, I should clarify again that my order of discoveries was - (1) Nathan Kaminsky, living more decisively in the right place to be the Ripper than anyone who has yet been named, suffering an ailment which indicated use of prostitutes and a possible wish to avenge himself on them, and potentially fitting the description of Leather Apron - a discovery which brought warm, "Go on! Go on!" cries from Richard W-E.) (2) No Kosminsky or Kaminsky in any asylum between 1888 and 1890, which led me to assume that Kaminsky (who disappeared from the records) had been incarcerated under another name (a kind of clerical error for which I found definite evidence in the records) (3) David Cohen as the man who both matched Kaminsky's description in age and parish of residence, went into the asylum at exactly the right time to explain the ending of the murders, displayed symptoms compatible with his being the ripper, and fitted Anderson's terse account better than any other occupant of any other asylum. Hence I concluded that Cohen was Anderson's suspect and probably the Ripper, and that by some bureaucratic error his name had been changed from Kaminsky which he had probably once used, whence the idea in Macnaghten's mind of a name 'Kosminsky'; and all these conclusion were reached and in print (which never reached the public) before (4) I found Kosminski going into the asylum too late and with inappropriate symptoms to be the Ripper. I paid for resetting the last chapter of my book and rewrote hastily to include this information - the rewrite would of course have indicated that I'd been wrong about Cohen, and Kosminsky was the probable Ripper, if this had seemed to me true. But I want to stress that I was already saying that Cohen had been confused with Kosminsky - a definitely different person - before th emergence of (5) the Swanson marginalia describing a supposed man who was called Komsinsky, yet died prematurely shortly after transfer to Colney Hatch Asylum - as only David Cohen did of all the Jewish inmates between 1888 and 1892, while the actual Kosminsky had another ten years to live when Swanson described him as long dead: rather good corroborative evidence of the complicated confusion I had argued before Swanson's confusion was known to me or anyone else except his grandsons and some pre-Murdoch News of the World investigator.
A longish essay! I hope it helps!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 02:13 am | | Martin,
How much prostitution was tolerated in the City jurisdiction? Was it confined mostly to the Mitre Square area?
Was Church Passage a covered alleyway in 1888?
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 06:44 am | | Hi Robeer,
I understand that there was an unwritten agreement that prostitutes who circled slowly round St Botolph's church would not be arrested for soliciting or obstruction (if such an offence existed in 1888) which made the area a popular one for the trade. Hutchinson saw MJK making her way down Commercial Street toward the church when she was stopped by the man inthe astrakhan collared coat. The church is effectively just across the (broad) road from Church Passage (an awkward passage through massed traffic via radiating pedestrian crossings two ways today). I have no idea what other beats were given unofficial tolerance in the City.
Church Passage was still covered when I first saw it in 1985: a long narrow alley with a round archway at the Duke's Place end and a simple squared off ending of the covering leading into the square. It ran the length of the broad open entry now going into the square, and only a heartless and Philistine corporation with no sensitivity to the refined tastes of us historiomaniac ghouls would have pulled it down and left something so dull and characterless in its place.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 09:50 am | | Martin.
Surely you are describing St. James Passage, Church Passage, to my knowledge, was not covered in 1985, I was there in 1972 and it was not covered.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chris Jd
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 10:21 am | | The confusing thing is, that former Church passage is now called St. James passage, and former St. James passage is now gone.
According to the photos of "Whitechapel now and then" on the casebook, tpfkacp ( the passage formerly known as church passage) :-) isn't covered except a small part of it, right?
Christian |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:07 am | | C:\My Documents
 Church_pass.jpg |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:08 am | | The 'original' Church Passage (from Duke St. to Mitre Sq) looked like the above pic in 1972.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chris Jd
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:26 am | | Thanks Jon,
thats the pic I meant.
regards
Christian |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:33 am | | Martin, Chris, Jon,
One reason for asking is that my original impression was that Church Passage was covered in 1888 making it very dark and creepy at night if not the daytime as well. It would have the advantage as shelter from the rain. Was there any lighting at all from within the passage?
Later I thought maybe I was wrong and it was open in 1888. If that was the case I could certainly understand Harvey not wanting to walk the entire length of the passage on a rainy night and turn around to walk all the way back in the wet cold. Or if he was diligent in his efforts he would likely take a quick glance and not linger.
However, if it was covered in 1888 then it actually provided shelter from the rain and he would have no reason not to inspect the square. I'm inclined to believe that JtR had already finished working on Eddowes before Harvey examined the square and he simply did not see her lying on the sidewalk. Or there was perfect timing. As Harvey finished peering into the square the couple was entering from St. James Passage and actually saw Harvey's light beam. Thinking he had plenty of time JtR now proceeded to attack Eddowes and do his dirty work.
Robeer |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Robeer
We have no records to date of any lighting in Church Passage. Contemporary maps and the plan drawn up by Frederick W. Foster do not indicate any such fixtures along the length of this passage.
P.C. Harvey stated he walked to the end where the passage opens up into the Square and we have no reason to doubt his statement.
However, his statement does cause a little problem, one of timing. You may be correct in your suggestion that he may not have actually walked all the way to the end but, we need something to the contrary in order to allow for this possibility.
Now, if we take Harvey's 'guesstimate' of walking down Church Passage and then only three or 4 mintues later, at the bottom end of Duke St (at Aldgate), he heard a whistle, placing his presence of being in Church Passage at somewhere around 21 or 22 minutes to 2 o'clock, then we have a problem of timing for the murder.
Watkins never varies from stating that he discovered the body at 1:44am. This is 16 minutes to 2 o'clock.
So, neither killer nor victim were in the square at 'about' 1:38 (Harvey) yet the body was discovered at 1:44.
6 minutes.
Even if it was scripted it would be an uncanny accomplishment of perfect timing.
Something is wrong with the timing or......or, Jack may well have been across the square, in the shadows, out of sight, 'in-progress' of his work when P.C. Harvey came down the passage.
My suggestion is that Harvey could not see 72' across the square with the type of lamp issued at that time.
I would still like to know if this 'assumption' is valid.
The timing is too tight.
regards, Jon
P.S. Don Rumbelow commented that Watkins had a watch. Not sure what he based that remark on. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:12 pm | | Maybe P.C.Harvey didn't go down Church Passage.Maybe somebody got him stirred up in the shiftroom about what would happen to a copper who surprised Jack at work. Praps he had a bad attack of jitters, hum  |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:28 pm | | Take a look at the maps on the Casebook Productions website. Select 'Explore JTR' then 'Maps' then 'Mitre Square'.
It will be seen that Church Passage was not covered in 1888. However, despite a wall lamp fixed at the Mitre Square end it would have been dark in the middle and rather forbidding - the walkway being much narrower than the present passage and overshadowed by buildings. Today that exit from Mitre Square through to Duke's Place (formerly Duke Street) is known as St. James' Passage.
The only covered exit - covered that is both in 1888 and the present day - is the passage which ran from the most northerly point of Mitre Square into St. James' Place, (today into Creechurch Lane). I believe this is now called Mitre Passage(?). On F.W. Foster's 1888 plan it was just labelled, "Passage leading to St. James' Place".
Regards, V. |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Jon,
I have watched experienced hunters gut a deer in less than 5 minutes and that is not as simple as it might seem. Brown thought it was possible for the killer to eviscerate Eddowes in about 5 minutes which is possible. It's the combined time of all things necessary to walk her in there, kill her, perform the mutilations, clean up, then exit, that I cannot see happening in under 10 minutes. Even at that it was incredible lucky timing for JtR.
If JtR did not have time to kill Eddowes before the police checked the square how about AFTER they checked the square? Is it possible, based on Rumbelow's suspicians, that Watkins did enter the square when he said but had a 15 minute break with hot tea while chatting with the night watchman who was a former policemen, then discovers the body on his way back out of the square to resume his beat? This means JtR murdered a victim at the same time Watkins was inside the square! Could Watkins have seen JtR leaving the square before discovering the body and could Watkins actually be the City PC who gave the description? Naturally this would be hushed up to avoid public outrage and accusations of negligence, dereliction, and incompetence. This could have created a scandal that might have cost Smith his job so he would certainly have every reason to keep the lid on this incident.
Robeer |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:53 pm | | Hello all-
Well, for what it's worth, this is from the Daily Telegraph of 11/13/1888:
"About ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was found in Mitre Square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion, and with a fair mustache, was said to have been seen talking to her in the covered passage leading to the square."
AAA88 |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 01:24 pm | | Robeer
Yes, the 'Watkins tea break' is similar to your suggestion, basically that the P.C.'s lied about their involvement that night.
Either or both suggestions may be right but where does that leave us?, we can all discount witness statements in order to create an hypothesis but that is not playing by the rules.
1:30am - Watkins patrols Mitre Square.
1:30am (approx), Blenkinsop (in St. James Place) is approached by a man enquiring after a 'man & woman together'.
1:33 or 1:34am - Lawende, Levy & Harris leave Club and see man & woman at Duke St. end of Church Passage, they make no mention of seeing P.C. Harvey.
1:38am (approx), - P.C. Harvey is in Church Passage, see's no-one, no man & woman, not Lawende, Levy nor Harris.
1:44am - Watkins finds body in corner.
The 6 minutes I suggested must include Harvey leaving Church Passage, killer bringing victim across (into?) the square, murder & mutilation, killer leaving, Watkins entering.
That leaves precious little time for the actual murder to take place, certainly not the 5 minutes you suggest.
Regards, Jon
When I asked a hunter if he could skin & evicerate a carcass at night he said, "are you kidding?, why would I even want to?, you'd cut your bloody fingers off". |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 01:35 pm | | Blenkinsop's statement of "approx 1:30am" could be in slight error (15 mins?). The 'man' who spoke to him could well have been a detective (or P.C.) investigating the murder, after the finding of the body.
However, on the other hand, this might have been another incident of a P.C. in plain clothes, this time following the killer & victim. This may be the origin of the "P.C. in Mitre Sq." story.
Records of which were destroyed in WWII.
Regards, Jon |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 01:51 pm | | Quite, Jesse. That Daily Telegraph article was discussed a few weeks back under the Israel Schwartz topic, at which time I was under the misapprehension that Church Passage was covered. It wasn't as the available sources show, so the report must have referred to the passage leading to St. James' Place.
So if the woman seen was indeed Kate Eddowes, it means she had been spotted in two separate passages leading to Mitre Square, since Lawende and friends saw her at the corner with Church Passage. The wording of the article also implied that the man she was seen with had been in the orange market (St. James' Place), though it wasn't specific as to whether she'd been there with him.
Unfortunately we have no named witnesses from the orange market to confirm the accuracy or otherwise of the Telegraph's story. The fire watchman Blenkinsop's story referred only to a lone man asking after a couple.
Jon,
While you're on, could you fill us in on a few more details about Blenkinsop please? Do you have a source for his story?
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 01:58 pm | | Hi Viper.
Thats about the size of it, I know it was recorded in 'The Star' of Oct. 1st, 1888 but I cannot lay my hand on this just now. What is in the 'JtR, A-Z' (3rd ed) is about all we have.
Paul B. or Martin F. may be able to enlarge on this article.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 02:28 pm | | To attempt to answer Robeer's original question I had to dig out a contemporary description of the murder site as reported in 'The Evening News', Oct. 1st, 1888.
The entrance to the square from Mitre Street is some fifteen yards wide and perhaps eight yards long. The square then widens some seven or eight yards on each side forming secluded corners on the north-west and south-west. Running from the north-east corner of the square is a covered passage leading to St. James's Place, otherwise known as the 'Orange Market', where three men of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade are always on duty at a fire escape station until daybreak.
From the north-west corner another passage runs into Duke Street so that there are in all three entrances to the square. The east and part of the north side are occupied by warehouses, and on the north side there is also a private house occupied by a City policeman named Pierce. On the south side is a warehouse. The fourth side is occupied by business premises and a workshop which is locked up at night. Next to it are three empty houses.
Pretty complete description, and I believe if Church Passage had been covered this article would have mentioned it. So, it appears, as we thought, only St. James Passage (passage leading to St. James Place) was the only one covered.
(Note, the article places Church Passage in the north-west when it is actually only east of the square.)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 09:40 pm | | Jon,
Let's assume all time estimates are correct. I think that is a risky assumption but for now let's assume they are perfect. That can only leave us with the following explanations:
1. JtR murdered and mutilated Eddowes before Harvey inspected Mitre Square.
2. JtR has already murdered Eddowes but is temporarily interrupted by Harvey's approach and must finish the mutilations after Harvey departs.
3. JtR murders and mutilates Eddowes after Harvey inspects the square but before Watkins arrives.
4. JtR murders and mutilates Eddowes after both Harvey and Watkins inspect the square.
Are there any other possibilities other than these?
Robeer |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:45 pm | | Robeer
Surely your points 4 & 3 are the same offering?
For the murder to have taken place after Watkins inspected the square (1:30am) and also after Harvey arrived (1:38am) and yet before Watkins returned at 1:44am is the same question, is it not?.
I think your point 2, is the least likely of the solutions, and to accept your point 1 means you would also agree that Harvey could not see across the square with his bullseye lantern.
Personally, I favour the timing of events being the culprit here, failing that I would have to go with point 1. but whether Jack was still crouched over Eddowes when Harvey decended the passage is open to question.
Harvey couldn't see that far so we will never know.
The bottom line is, in my opinion, that we need not regard Jack as a super-sleuth and quick with a knife. We have created this image because we put too much reliance on the stated times being correct.
regards, Jon |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 12:43 am | | Jon,
I agree completely with your last statement and that is a naive habit that bugs this case. I want to pursue that thought later but for now I ask you to help me explore the possibility the times were right on and see where that leads us.
Points 3 and 4 are very different. Actually point 3 is what we are currently being asked to believe. The underlying assumption in the previous discussions on the MB is the times ARE correct, points 1, 2, and 4 are irrelevant and the only chance JtR could have to kill Eddowes is precisely the scenario described in point 3 and he'd better be quick about it. So I ask you, is it possible? My opinion is no, not is 4 minutes. That means we are forced to consider 1, 2, and 4 as possible scenarios. Want to give them a go? I'll wait for your analysis.
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 07:21 am | | Hi all,
Checking back in "The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper" I find I wrote "the dark covered Church Passage which led southwest out of the street into Mitre Square...". Since I had recently visited it and all the other Ripper sites (first for "Murder Guide to London"; then for the Ripper book), it seems that I was quite capable of relatively short-term misrecollection. The entry to Church Passage was, of course covered (like the entry to Gunthorpe Street today); but as Jon's photograph shows, the local government mutilation of this beauty spot has consisted of removing the arch and widening what was formerly a narrow uncovered alley.
If I could make this inept and misleading description after a recent visit in 1985, (leading me to a complete misrecollection by 2002), might not the Telegraph reporter in 1888 also have described the covered entry as a covered alley?
I fear I've nothing more with me on Blenkinsop. Really I congratulate Paul, Keith and me for getting the date and place of the Star article in A-Z - (a piece of competence we didn't invariably manage) - so that those with access to Colindale can run a check.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 08:42 am | | Hello Martin.
The quotation from 'The Evening News' above describes the passage to St. James Place as a 'covered passage', it then describes Church Passage as 'another passage'. Inconclusive as to whether it was covered or not, but I feel the way the article was written they are not describing it as covered.
Now, it appears you are suggesting that Church Passage was entered from Duke St. by passing under an arch?.
Then I assume you are also not proposing that it was covered throughout its entire length, just an entry arch.
Ok, if thats what you mean then I guess we are in agreement.
You once offered that the building to the left of Church Passage (in the pic above) was/is not a contemporary structure from 1888?.
I was under the impression that it may have been and that the very fact there are windows would betray the fact that the passage was not covered.
Are you sure the structure is not contemporary?
(any input, Viper?)
Thanks, Jon |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 08:47 am | | If it’s of any use, the full report on Blenkingsop from the Star, 1 Oct. 1888 was as follows:
"James Blenkingsop, who was on duty as a watchman in St. James’s-place (leading to the square), where some street improvements are taking place, states that about half-past one a respectably-dressed man came up to him and said, “Have you seen a man and a woman go through here?” “I didn’t take any notice,” returned Blenkingsop. “I have seen some people pass.” The murdered woman was found lying on her back, and presented
A HORRIBLE AND SICKENING SIGHT."
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 09:32 am | | Robeer
Your point 3, "after Harvey inspects the square but before Watkins arrives" places the timeframe between 1:38 - 1:44am.
Your point 4, "after both Harvey and Watkins inspect the square" places the murder after 1:38am but before 1:44am.
They appear to be the same question to me.
However, for the sake of this exchange you are asking that we ACCEPT the stated times are correct and that we DISCOUNT option 3.
Fare enough, now, option 2 would mean to me that if Jack had already subdued (strangled/choked/garotted) Eddowes and slit her throat, then hears the plod of P.C. Harvey, Jack would make off into the shadows. But, you suggest he lingered as if he knew Harvey would not see her body across the square, and, pass-by on his beat, or, turn around and ascend the passage from where he just came.
I cannot accept either possibility because that is the stuff of Hollywood not true-life, not in my opinion anyway. Jack would have made off at the first sight of a P.C.
This leaves me only with options 1 or 4.
I have already failed to see the distinction between option 3 & 4 and as you discount #3 then I cannot consider #4.
Therefore, I discount #4 on the basis it is the same scenario as #3, in my opinion.
I am left with the only solution you leave me with and that is that Eddowes was murdered very likely just after Watkins left the square about 1:32? am.
Lawende, Levy & Harris saw a man and a woman BUT we cannot guarantee that these are the same as the victim and the killer.
This sighting was approx. 1:34am.
IF, this was the killer & Eddowes then he had to walk with her down Church Passage, across the square, subdue her, slit her throat and mutilate her before Harvey came down the passage about 1:38am. This gives him 4 minutes in all and in my opinion is not enough unless, unless Jack stayed crouched over her body, staying perfectly still while Harvey stood across the square under the corner lamp before he turned and walked back up the passage.
This scenario is a little too dramatic for my liking, but is still possible, however, the question might be asked, 'how did Jack know Harvey would not walk across the square?'.
And that is a valid point.
Alternately, the couple seen at the entrance to Church Passage were NOT the killer & Eddowes, but that the 'man & woman' who passed through St. James Place (Blenkinsop) at 1:30am may have been Jack & Eddowes.
This means that as Watkins was leaving Mitre Sq. on his beat at 1:30am the killer & Eddowes were walking down St. James Passage.
This opens up the timeframe and gives Jack approx 7-8 minutes before Harvey decends the passage.
It is still tight but far more workable than the previous alternatives, in my opinion.
Regards, Jon
(your ball) |
|
|
|
|
