** 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 **
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion: Mystery PC of Mitre Square: Archive through 17 June 2002
Author: Robin A. Lacey Friday, 14 June 2002 - 12:52 am | |
Hi Robeer, Re your 11 June posting concerning the creation of a matrix, etc. I have just read through the chapter on Eddowes in The Ultimate JtR Source Book (Evans and Skinner). In his statement to the Eddowes Inquest James Harvey is quoted as saying: ‘At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.’ And: ‘I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.’ Yet in your embryonic ‘matrix’ I read: ‘before Harvey examined the square,’ and ‘before Harvey inspected Mitre Square,’ and ‘after Harvey inspects the square,’ and ‘after both Harvey and Watkins inspect the square’ Surely, based on the available evidence, that Harvey examined/inspected Mitre Square that night is pure supposition? Am I, perhaps, misunderstanding the structure and purpose of your matrix, or is there potential here for a supposition to evolve into a fact? Perhaps you could incorporate in your matrix something that allows novices such as myself to easily recognise which factors are factual and which are not. I look forward to your response. Regards, Robin
| |
Author: Robin A. Lacey Friday, 14 June 2002 - 12:55 am | |
To Everybody, Help! Catherine Eddowes Inquest. Extract from statement by Police Surgeon George William Sequeira. In book one I read: ‘I know the locality. This is the darkest portion of the Square. There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light.’ In book two I read: ‘I know the locality. This is the darkest portion of the Square. There would have been insufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any light.’ Sufficient light. Insufficient light. Well, folks, which is it to be? Was there enough light for Jack to carry out his handiwork, or did he use a lamp of some kind? The obvious solution would be for me to look at the original transcripts. Unfortunately, they are – I believe - 100 miles away in London, and I don’t travel well. Hence the plea for help. Regards and Thanks to all, Robin p.s. it has occurred to me to approach the problem through grammar, but I am not that conversant with the Victorian English variety (nor 21stC, come to think of it).
| |
Author: Robeer Friday, 14 June 2002 - 02:31 am | |
Robin, Let us know which version is correct! As to a matrix you can set one up anyway you want to. A matrix is supposed to be a universe of either all probabilities or all possibilities to a given decision or solution. Some corporations use them to make strategic decisions and I'm sure the US military probably does too. This particular matrix is the simplist one I could think of to start the process. The underlying assumption is: (A) all witnesses are telling the truth and (B) all time estimates are correct. That is of course a bit optimistic. Some witnesses may not be telling the truth and the times may be inaccurate but in order to have a discussion take place in the context of a matrix I thought it best to keep it simple initially and expand upon it as we go. The mistake I made at first that confused Jon was I comingled a probability matrix with a possiblity matrix. That was my mistake and we will eventually get there but we need a simple foundation to get started and this one is doing well. Once we develop a consensus as to the basic information and what it tells us we can add more complexity to it as we go. It must be noted that business planners, military strategists, and certainly police detectives have for years used internal matrixes within their brain, they just didn't know that's what they were doing. Now we have a name for it. These internal brain matrixes are based on logic, experience, education, and instinct. All these influences coalesce to help them weigh and prioritize evidence, clues, testimony, allegations, and anonymous tips. The brain processes all this in a subconscious mental matrix developed over the years. Some have a knack for this and are naturally good at it. They become stars in their profession but when they retire the department loses this natural talent that may not be easily replaced. A formal matrix can help train all personnel involved in how to process information and analyze data. It becomes a tool to both organize the data and speed up the process of dealing with the data as it is gathered or changes. Patterns can emerge once a matrix is used and promising leads indentified and old leads reconsidered. In no way does a matrix discourage creative thinking. In fact just the opposite usually happens. Participants at some point are eventually challenged to "think outside the box" or to even challenge the conclusions indicated by the matrix. A matrix is simply a tool. We need not become a slave to it, but it would be a big mistake to ignore the advantages of using this excellant analytical method of evaluating the accumulated information pertaining to any case in need of a solution. Robeer
| |
Author: Monty Friday, 14 June 2002 - 07:37 am | |
Robeer, Morris's statements. I found them in the Sourcebook. Catherine Eddowes inquest. Monty
| |
Author: Robin A. Lacey Friday, 14 June 2002 - 11:32 am | |
Hello to Everybody, First off, a big thank-you to you, Robeer, for outlining to me the nature and purpose of a matrix. I had not heard of such a thing before. I now see it as an excellent way forward, though I see from some postings that not everybody is in agreement on this point (now, there’s a surprise!). It’ll be interesting, to say the least, to see what eventually emerges from this exercise. To Jon and anyone else who may be wondering. My sources for the problem over whether Sequeira said ‘there would have been sufficient light’ or ‘there would have been insufficient light’ are, respectively, The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Sourcebook’ by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, and ‘The Ripper and The Royals’ by Melvyn Fairclough. Incidentally, in the latter’s version the word ‘extra’ does not appear in the last sentence. Rightly or wrongly, I consider this particular difference to be of little, if any, significance. At first, I considered Fairclough’s version to be the correct one. But this was, to be quite honest, solely because my current belief is that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were not killed and mutilated where their bodies were found. As with – I would suggest – Fairclough’s, my theory (I use the term tentatively) would benefit from having ‘insufficient’ light in that depressing corner of Mitre Square. I think we all have a tendency to initially accept that that suits us, and reject that that does not. Anyway, several musings and cans of beer later, I decided that the preponderance of probability is with the Sourcebook, and that Fairclough is (perhaps with others) most likely mistaken. I now want to ask yet another favour of you all. Would some kind souls take pity on me and wend their ways back up this thread to 11 June, take a gander at my scribblings on the use of a handcart and, more specifically, the use of a tarpaulin, and post their views. As I understand it, that Eddowes was killed and mutilated in the Square rests on Sequeira’s views on the congealing rate of Eddowes blood. Regards and thanks to all, Robin
| |
Author: Robeer Friday, 14 June 2002 - 03:42 pm | |
Simon, I have replied to your above poste on a new thread Ripper Victims: Long Liz and Dutfield's Yard. I consider you an expert on the Berner Street murder and would be interested in your response to my comments about the location and speculation as to why Liz was in Dutfield's Yard when she was murdered. Robeer
| |
Author: alex chisholm Friday, 14 June 2002 - 08:15 pm | |
Hi Robin The official inquest papers clearly record Sequeira as saying “sufficient light.” These papers also include the word “extra” as found in Evans & Skinner’s Sourcebook. Hope this helps Best wishes alex
| |
Author: Jack Traisson Friday, 14 June 2002 - 09:28 pm | |
Robeer, I've been away. Sorry I haven't been able to contribute to your matrix. It looks interesting. Graz, Will this example do? Taken from: Hastings & St Leonards News, 26 Jan 1855. William Huggett, landlord of the Ship, [Great Bourne street] was summoned for allowing unfortunates and persons of notorious bad character to assemble upon his premises. Late at night one Saturday, Inspector Battersby was passing through Post-office passage when he heard some persons raffling in a house at the rear of the Ship public house. The room was not part of the Ship but Huggett hired the house (at 6 shillings and 2 pence a week), and had knocked a wall through to his pub. Then he saw some beer brought out of the Ship and into the room where the raffling was going on. There were twelve to fourteen men and four women, of whom two were drunk. He heard a dispute about paying for the beer "in female voices and in language not fit to be repeated". Two days later he found a man in the yard outside the same room "in a very indecent position with a drunken woman." The police halted their congress, but later returned to find the same pair engaged in the same act, again outside in the yard. The police inspector said "I consider it to be a worse place than a common brothel" and his sergeant added that he had often found unfortunates in the room behind the Ship. Huggett was fined 10 shillings and 19 shillings 6 pence costs, with a week to pay. Cheers, John
| |
Author: Robin A. Lacey Friday, 14 June 2002 - 11:48 pm | |
Hi Alex, What a gem! Many, many thanks. Much appreciated. Now that that anomaly is clearly settled, I can turn my attention onto Goulston Street and the piece of Eddowes' apron. Kind regards, Robin p.s. your info puts a dent in my very-slowly-budding theory, but it's nothing too serious
| |
Author: Robeer Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 12:53 am | |
Update Number 3, This matrix exercise has been most interesting. It has attracted a very important little known fact and helped fine tune other facts. By sharing information we are bringing things into focus. Here is the latest updates and some conclusions: ______________________________________________________________ 1) Watkins inspects Mitre Square at 1:30 AM. 2) A couple is observed at the entrance to Church Passage at 1:33 - 1:35 AM. 3) PC Harvey inspects Mitre Square at either 1:40 AM or 1:42 AM. 4) PC Watkins enters Mitre Square at 1:44 AM and discovers the body of Catharine Eddowes officially listed at 1:45 AM. ______________________________________________________________ If we can agree on the above information then we can make the following conclusions: ______________________________________________________________ A. JtR murdered and mutilated Eddowes before Harvey inspected Mitre Square. B. JtR was interrupted by Harvey's approach and finished the mutilations after Harvey departed. C. JtR murders and mutilates Eddowes after Harvey inspects the square before Watkins arrives. ______________________________________________________________ In other words JtR murders/mutilates Eddowes: A) Before Harvey inspects the square. [ 1:33 or 1:35 AM - 1:40 or 1:42 AM ] 5 - 9 minute window B) Before and after Harvey inspects the square. [ 1:33 or 1:35 AM - 1:44 AM ] 9 - 11 minute window C) After Harvey inspects the square but before Watkins arrives. [ 1:40 or 1:42 AM - 1:44 AM ] 2 - 4 minute window Time window from most to least: B) 8 - 10 minutes A) 5 - 9 minutes C) 2 - 4 minutes Interestingly no one questioned an apparent discrepancy in the last matrix update as to why alternative B didn't match its corresponding timeframe. The answer was I deducted 2 minutes for hiding in the shadows while Harvey looked around with his bull's eye. On this update I only allow 1 minute thinking Harvey didn't linger that long. So here are my conclusions knowing a lot more than I did when we started: 1. Option C is obviously the least probable scenario and is a candidate for being no longer considered a serious option. 2. Option B was in the running until Monty informed us that Morris, the night watchman for Kearley and Tonge, opened the door to his office and started sweeping the steps at exactly the same time PC Harvey was walking down Church Passage toward the square. My opinion is the combined activity and noise would have been too much for JtR and he exited the square at that time. JtR could hear and see Morris no doubt. Even if Morris didn't step into the square for some fresh air there was still a possibility he could spot JtR through the open door. JtR had to realize this and knew it was time to go which only took a few seconds. He had time to leave by the south entrance (Mitre Street) and not be seen because PC Watkins was still 2 minutes away. If JtR left by the St. James Passage he would need to walk right past Morris' office and chance being seen as he passed the open door, so it is unlikely he chose this exit. 3. So this is what the matrix tells me: Option A is the highest probability for the actual scenario. If JtR and Eddowes were the couple seen at the entrance to Church Passage then this murder took no more than 9 minutes. It tells me JtR doesn't chit chat but attacks immediately when he finds a location to his liking. He works fast and doesn't waste time. He could have had as little as 5 minutes in this scenario but it was all the time he needed so Dr. Iain West may be more correct than Dr. Brown. West thinks JtR could perform the evisceration in as little as 2 minutes. Brown estimates 5 minutes. The long range of 9 minutes would accomodate both the West and Brown estimates. In conclusion, the probability goes up JtR is the man in the couple who was seen by Lawende and friends. This man bore a similar resemblance to a man seen on Berner Street earlier, both described as having the appearance of a sailor. That description is out of the ordinary so the probability goes up it could be the same man. This means the probability goes up that Stride was indeed one of the canonical five victims. How then could PC Harvey have missed seeing the body? Several posters have commented on this possiblity. To me all of them are possible, if not probable: the light beam from his bull's eye lantern didn't reach far enough, he only shined it looking for persons standing up, he saw the body but thought it was discarded clothing or rags, he looked around so quickly he didn't notice the body in the darkest corner, the gas lamp in the square hindered more than helped his vision, he didn't walk all the way to the end only shined his light from even further back. These are six plausible reasons he did not see the body which was there when he glanced into the square. There are two alternative theories to the matrix. There is a story or theory that Eddowes and JtR followed PC Watkins close enough to be in the square a bit earlier, but only by a minute or two. I'm not sure if this means they entered by the south entrance, if so then they are not likely to be the couple seen on Duke Street. Perhaps someone can clarify this theory for us. Would PC Watkins have made his 1:30 AM inspection from Church Passage or the south entrance? Another possibility is the one raised by Donald Rumbelow that JtR and Eddowes met inside Mitre Square and entered from two different directions to rendezvous there. This is an interesting theory that may explain how they gave a possible undercover City PC the slip from Orange Market. I'm convinced the man in the suit who inquired of Blenkinsop about a couple passing by was indeed a plainclothes City PC whose stakeout was Orange Market. Right now this would be my leading candidate for "The mystery City PC of Mitre Square" and the reason why Sir Henry Smith was so frustrated by the missed opportunity to catch JtR. What we don't know is how the timing of the couple in Orange Market fits the timing of the couple on Duke Street. If anyone sees a mistake please point it out so we can perfect the matrix data. If there is anything to add or anything overlooked please point it out. I look forward to your comments. Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 06:33 pm | |
New Matrix OK, it looks like we have finished with our PROBABILITY Matrix so now its time to move on to the POSSIBILITY Matrix. We are stepping “out of box” of Probability into the realm of Possibility. This will be even more interesting and is sure to be more controversial. Here is the new POSSIBILITY MATRIX: _____________________________________________________________ 1. JtR murdered Eddowes after PC Watkins examined Mitre Square at 1:30 AM but before PC Harvey checked on the square at 1:40 AM. 2. JtR murdered Eddowes before PC Harvey arrived and finished mutilations after Harvey departed but before PC Watkins returned to the square at 1:44 AM. 3. JtR murdered Eddowes after PC Harvey checked on the square but before PC Watkins returned to the square at 1:44 AM. 4. JtR murdered Eddowes after PC Watkins arrived at the square at 1:44 AM. _____________________________________________________________ You may need to let this sink in for a minute. For the sake of simplicity let’s eliminate #2 and #3 because of their low probability status as discussed in the Probability Matrix. Option #1 now has a new rival, Option #4. So I will restate the POSSIBILITY Matrix: 1. JtR murdered Eddowes after PC Watkins examined Mitre Square at 1:30 AM but before PC Harvey checked on the square at 1:40 AM. 4. JtR murdered Eddowes after PC Watkins arrived at the square at 1:44 AM. I know what your thinking, “How is #4 even possible ?!” Here are some hypothetical scenarios: 5. Watkins enters Mitre Square at 1:44 AM. Nothing is amiss. He takes the opportunity to have some hot tea with Morris the night watchman and use the facilities. After 10-15 minutes he leaves to resume his patrol and notices something on the sidewalk he had not seen when he entered the square. Closer inspection reveals the body of Catharine Eddowes. 6. Watkins enters Mitre Square at 1:44 AM and everything appears normal. The square is empty and he seeks out his friend, the night watchman for Kearley & Tonge. They drink hot tea, Watkins uses the facilities, after which he and Morris, a former policeman, discuss the recent murders in the Whitechapel district, wondering if their Met counterparts are making any headway in the search for the killer. Suddenly they hear voices in the square and footsteps that hurry away. Watkins turns to investigate and sees a uniformed Met PC standing over something on the ground. What looks from a distance to be a pile of rags is in reality the body of a murder victim. Stunned by this turn of events he immediately uses his police whistle. The alarm is answered by the closest City PCs who come running. In the meantime the Met PC departs in the commotion that ensues. Watkins, shocked by the sudden events, fails to get his name. No one notices he took Eddowes shawl as he left. One other scenario needs some attention. Some might be thinking that the Possibility Matrix above allows for creative thinking where less probable but still possible scenarios may be entertained, but surely the initial Probability Matrix eliminates any hope of the Steve White story being true. Actually no it doesn’t. In fact, the Probability Matrix allows the White story to fall right into place. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: 7. JtR gets nervous about the increased activity of Morris and Harvey and decides the square is too crowded for comfort. He departs by the south exit walking quickly making his getaway from the square. In his haste he doesn’t notice a man standing on the sidewalk who speaks to him as he turns left on Mitre Street heading for Aldgate. JtR answers but keeps on walking realizing this could be a Police Constable. Obviously the PC knows nothing about Eddowes yet and JtR picks up the pace as he steps onto Aldgate. JtR doesn’t hear any whistles yet but he does hear footsteps running behind him and ducks into Goulston Street. He’s thinking its a good thing he purchased the new rubber shoes knowing he can silently escape any pursuers. About two minutes after leaving the square JtR hears the first whistle from that direction. He has evaded capture once again, but this was a close call. He’s thinking maybe its time to change tactics. While he is hiding he feels like celebrating his victory by leaving a clue. He drops the piece of apron he used to wipe off the disgusting fecal matter he got on him when he accidentally cut one of the intestines. He then leaves a graffiti message on the dado under the arch where the police will be sure to find it. He thinks to himself, “The police already think a crazy Jew is doing these crimes so I will keep them headed in the wrong direction. A lot of the police officials are Masons so I’ll leave them something to give them a shock! Two false trails created with one little piece of chalk, ha, ha!!” Back at Mitre Square the man JtR spoke to was indeed a PC by the name of Steve White. As White watched JtR go toward Aldgate one of his stake out men, Sergeant Amos Simpson on loan from L division, has discovered a body in the square. Simpson hails White who realizes the murderer just passed by and White takes off after him. Simpson had picked up the shawl to examine the body and when White takes off running Simpson follows. Simpson is well down Aldgate before he realizes he still has the shawl in his hand. He asks White what to do with it and White orders Simpson to keep looking for JtR and return the shawl later. Simpson takes the shawl home that night and the next day when told of the events of the previous night the Met brass decides they want to keep the whole incident confidential and order Simpson to keep quiet. He hates to throw the shawl away and keeps it thinking one day he will turn it over to the proper authorities. In the shock, confusion, and haste neither White nor Simpson thought to blow their alarm whistles. This may be no oversight since White did not want to tip off the suspect the body had been discovered yet. White may have thought his chances were better of catching the murderer if they didn’t cause him to run by blowing whistles. In the meantime PC Watkins enters the square two minutes after this surprise encounter with JtR and is the first to sound the alarm. One more variation on this hypothetical scenario: 8. Watkins enters Mitre Square at 1:44 AM and notices a pile of rags dumped on the sidewalk. He continues across the square to see if night watchman Morris has any hot tea brewing. They visit and sip tea for about 5 minutes. During this short break the body of Kate Eddowes is discovered by PC Amos Simpson and his supervisor Steve White who depart in haste without sounding their whistles. Watson finishes his tea and departs to resume his patrol. He then takes a closer look at the pile of rags he noticed on the way in and to his horror realizes it is the mutilated body of a woman! _____________________________________________________________ So the White story makes a surprisingly good fit into the events surrounding the crime in Mitre Square that awful night. This press account can be categorized as an anonymous tip and the White story should be treated as a legitimate allegation and therefore remain part of the ongoing investigation. I look forward to your comments. Robeer
| |
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 07:35 pm | |
ROBEER, I salute thee, write the book, I'll buy for sure. Rick
| |
Author: Robeer Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 08:10 pm | |
Warwick, Thank you for the compliment. That is very kind of you. Actually what I was hoping for is that we all would 'write the book' as a team using the matrix approach to guide us. It has worked even better than I expected. A matrix is a simple but effective tool for collecting, organizing, understanding, and evaluating information in order to make a well informed decision which might lead to a solution. One thing I like about the Message Board is we are really one big team. We might fuss and argue but even that process is informative. Knowing every word I might use will be challenged makes me much more thorough and careful before I post on this message board, that's for sure! Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 06:09 am | |
To all, Could someone confirm the following statement in A-Z, p.131? Would you tell us the source of this statement as well? Thanks.
Robeer
| |
Author: alex chisholm Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 08:23 am | |
Hi Robeer The A-Z says: “at about 1.40 a.m. Police Constable James Harvey came along Duke’s Place and down Church Passage on his beat. He saw no one and heard nothing from the square, which he did not enter.” (A-Z 1994 edition page 131, or 1996 edition page 124) The official inquest papers record Harvey as saying: “At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square. I saw no one. I heard no cry or noise.” And later, in response to a question by the jury; “I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.” Best Wishes alex
| |
Author: Jon Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 08:55 am | |
Gents. One minor point. There are exisitng statements by P.C.'s refering to 'turning on their lantern'. Another one tells us that 'their lantern would go out if you started to run'. Various reports indicate that P.C.'s did not all walk around the streets all night with their lanterns lit. That, like Watkins, they would only lite the lamp when necessary. The point being, P.C. Harvey makes no mention of using his lantern, he made no attempt to view the square as part of his beat and therefore had no reason to lite his lantern for that purpose. The square was not part of his beat. If his lantern was already lit he makes no mention of using it. All arguments concerning Harvey's lantern are therefore speculatory as we cannot be certain he used it. Regards, Jon
| |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 02:39 pm | |
Robeer. Your scenario of the events in Mitre Square is very plausible. It is as good if not better than others. Remember at the time of the Eddowes murder Amos Simpson was not a PC, but was an acting Sargeant, so more likely to be seconded to surveillance duties. It all boils down to good old common sense really, and when thinking of the JTR case we must try and put our minds into how people would have thought 114 years ago, and not how we think today.
| |
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 07:31 pm | |
Robeer, It has been stated by some people that the killer left Berner Street and went straight to Mitre Square and when leaving Mitre Square he went straight to Goulston Street.We have two missing times which idicate that Jack did neither of the above.
| |
Author: lucky pierre Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 08:10 pm | |
Ivor, Please note my recent inquiry on beyond serial murder/sexual homicide. I think I'm addressing this issue and timeline problem indirectly for you. I'd appreciate a comment from you.
| |
Author: Monty Monday, 17 June 2002 - 08:23 am | |
Robeer, Two thing that have really been bugging me about the Mitre sq murder. 1) The yard near to where Kate was found, does anyone know if the yard door was open or closed, locked or unlocked. I cannot find anything anywhere. Diana made this observation many months ago and suggested Jack hid there. At the time I dismissed her. I think I may have been too rash. Sorry Diana, 2) NWM Morris stated in a reply to a question from the Coroner that he never quitted the warehouse between the hours of 7pm and 1am. Does anyone else find a) the question puzzling and b) the answer even more puzzling ? If we are to take Morris literally then he left the premises before the murder had happened. Am I reading this wrong ? Tell me folks...I can take it. Very very very confused Monty
| |
Author: Robeer Monday, 17 June 2002 - 11:44 am | |
Alex, Thanks for the confirmation. After reading all three statements it is unclear exactly what PC Harvey did that night. The quote I posted was from the Casebook Productions website which is an excellant source of information. Interesting how they interpreted Harvey's statements. Apparently Harvey's inspection that night was perfunctory at best. It has been pointed out that Mitre Square was not his reponsibility and we can only assume he glanced into the square more out of curiosity than duty, which would indicate a very brief peek into this area as opposed to a thorough inspection. Jon, That is a very interesting question. Where did you find this information? I consider this a significant issue. Harvey had two long narrow passages to inspect on his beat. I would presume he would need the lantern for both, if nothing else for his own protection. Wonder if there is anyway to research this question further? Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Monday, 17 June 2002 - 11:58 am | |
Andy & Sue, Thanks for your comments. I completely agree with your statement. Ivor, Can you expand on those comments? How long does it take to walk from Berner Street to Duke Street? I have always assumed that JtR escaped by the south exit from the square, turned left, and used Aldgate to make for Goulston Street. He could have turned right on Mitre Street instead and taken a much longer route to reach Goulston Street or went to another location first then to Goulston Street. If the latter case is true then Goulston Street may have been a specific destination, not just a random hiding place. Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Monday, 17 June 2002 - 12:09 pm | |
Monty, Diana's question is a good one. I touched on this point in an earlier discussion. Is there any information on whether the fences along Mitre Square had gates? I would doubt the fences behind the yards belonging to the private homes had gates but the large yard on the east side may have had one. It does seem like there was discussion on this a long time ago and if memory serves there was a gate but it was locked from the inside. Don't hold me to that, it's been a long time since I read that discussion. I just rechecked the Mitre Square map on Casebook Productions and in the map key it identifies this yard as "yard & passage", so we must assume there was a gate and it was probably locked from the inside. This yard may or may not have been a common yard to several buildings. Was it thoroughly checked that night by police? We would expect the answer to be yes, but does anyone know for sure? Very curious answer by NWM George Morris. He cleary states he opened his door at approximately 1:42 AM and began sweeping the stairs. What do you make of this confusing reply? Robeer
| |
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 17 June 2002 - 04:03 pm | |
Robeer, Two routes were available to the killer from Berner Street to Duke Street in 1888. The main road route and the back route.The latter route has now been obliterated.Anyway I believe the killer only moved on the main roads. I re-constructed the times as best I could at the same time as I believed the killer used the route. I left the site of Dutfields Yard in Berner Street at 12.55am. I walked up Berner street into Commercial Road and headed towards Duke Street.I was walking at a very fast pace. I stopped at the old prostitutes church St Botolphs,Aldgate for two minutes ( because Jack may have stopped there on the way to the square to pick up a prostitute knowing it was the ideal place to get one, if he never arranged to meet one on site ) I reached the entrance to Church passage at a few seconds prior to 1.07am. But Jack was not seen here until 1.33-35am So where was he for nearly half an hour ? I believe he went to his bolt hole in Leman St which is halfway between Berner Street and Mitre Square. And when he left Mitre Square he went back to Leman St.He went to ground as fast as he could after each murder.That is one reason why the routes from Dukes Street, Dorset Street, and Berner Street are all dead STRAIGHT routes on main roads back to the centre.And these spots where 3 victims were found are exactly 500yds from a point at the centre whem measured on an Ordnance Survey map. Here are the times without stopping. Centre to site 3 ( Dutfields Yard ) = 5mins, 10 secs, .40 of a sec. Distance = 555.11 metres Centre to Site 4 ( corner of Mitre Sq) 4mins, 52secs, .99 of a second. Distance= 483.15 metres Just add these distances and times up and you have total time from the entrance of Dutfields Yard to where Eddowes was found. All distances were times and measured at two speeds, very fast and normal The above times are very fast.But I walked brisk at my normal pace.Well I did then before I was married !!!!
| |
Author: Monty Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 07:29 am | |
Robeer, Re NWM Morris, It baffles me too. At this point I must confess a mistake. Morris stated that he never left the premises between 11pm and 1am, not 7pm and 1am as I have stated earlier. It was an answer put to Crawfords' question. What was this question ? If it was specific then why or what was Crawfords reasoning in putting forward those times ? Did he know something we do not ? If it was Morris himself that came up with these times then he is contradicting himself and surely would have put him in a very awkward position of being a suspect. But what I cannot understand is why no one has picked up on this. Am I the only one ? Monty
| |
Author: Robeer Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 10:52 pm | |
To all, Back to the title of this thread here is the list of candidates for: The mystery City PC of Mitre Square 1. The man in a suit who inquired of Blenkinsop if a couple passed through St. James Passage from Orange Market. 2. The "watchboy" of Aldgate Station. 3. PC Halse 4. PC Smith 5. PC Spicer Are there any other names that should be on this list? Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 03:15 am | |
To All, Does any one know how to locate Butcher's Row, Aldgate, on a map? Is The City of London the epicenter of Metropolitan London? Would the east part of the City itself be considered East London or East End in the local vernacular? By this I mean was the eastern portion of the City for all practical purpose part of the culture of the East End? I'm wondering if this part of the City was comingled with and influenced by East End culture and commerce to the extent it was mentally identified with the East End in the minds of the citizens of London? By the way, what do you call a citizen of London? Londonite, Londoner, Londonian? Robeer
| |
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 05:59 am | |
Does any one know how to locate Butcher's Row, Aldgate, on a map? The name referred to the south side of Aldgate High Street from Mansell Street to Jewry Street. Is The City of London the epicenter of Metropolitan London? Depends how you define it. It was and still is the financial and commercial centre. However, I think most people would settle for the City of Westminster as the epicentre, being as it is the seat of power and being closer to the cultural core. Would the east part of the City itself be considered East London or East End in the local vernacular? By this I mean was the eastern portion of the City for all practical purpose part of the culture of the East End? These are very good questions. Many people would have argued that the East End started at the old Aldgate Pump, located at the confluence of Leadenhall and Fenchurch Streets. By that definition, the City’s most easterly Ward (administrative district) of Portsoken, and parts of the Aldgate and Bishopsgate Wards would have more in common with the East End. On the other hand the districts were administrationally part of the more affluent City and there would have been tell tale signs, such as better street lighting and a much greater presence of financial companies. Today the division between the City and the Borough of Tower Hamlets is more obvious that it was back in 1888. (Just take a walk along Middlesex Street [through which the boundary runs] and contrast the architecture on either side of the road). In the late C19th it wasn’t so obvious. Places like Aldgate High Street, Middlesex Street, Minories and Houndsditch would have contained their share of commercial and financial institutions, but they would also have had a great many smaller businesses. The side streets surrounding them were teaming with small shopkeepers and tradesmen who often lived on the premises, giving the eastern part of the City a residential feel that had by that time disappeared from other parts of it.* A great many of these small traders were, of course, Jewish. That would have created an impression for any visitor to the area that it was more like an extension of Whitechapel, though once again there would have been subtle differences. Aldgate had been a place of Jewish settlement in the Middle Ages and become one again after Oliver Cromwell’s re-admission of the Jews c1657. Through the C18th and early C19th the area was considerably affected by Jewish immigration, mainly from Holland and from Germany. Hence the community in Aldgate would have been more Anglisised than those of say Whitechapel or St. George’s-in-the-East. *A big change in the character of the City of London starts to occur around 1840 for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was a natural movement at this time towards a financial, as opposed to a commercial economy. Next, there were changes to the City’s administration in 1835 which impacted the ownership of property and the ability to start businesses in the Square Mile. It’s also about the time that public transport starts to take off, negating the need of the more affluent to live close to their work. So to summarise an answer to the question, I think the Aldgate area was a sort of hybrid, but overall it did have a very strong flavour of the East End. To an outsider visiting the area for the day, with no knowledge of the City of London’s boundary, my feeling is that he’d have thought it had much more in common with the areas to the east than it did to the areas of Bank, Dowgate, St. Paul’s or Fleet Street, all of which are in the City. I'm wondering if this part of the City was comingled with and influenced by East End culture and commerce to the extent it was mentally identified with the East End in the minds of the citizens of London? See above. By and large the answer’s ‘Yes’, though there would have been some detectable differences. By the way, what do you call a citizen of London? Londonite, Londoner, Londonian? A Londoner. Regards, V.
| |
Author: Robeer Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 06:37 am | |
Viper, Thanks for the very thorough, detailed, and quick response. It's the classic trademark answer of the meticulous ripperologist we know as The Viper. Your grasp and instant recall of details never ceases to amaze me. You are well named. The Viper always strikes with speed and accuracy. Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 06:16 am | |
To All, To answer my own question, yes, and here is a more complete list. Back to the title of this thread here is the list of candidates for: The mystery City PC of Mitre Square 1. The man in a suit who inquired of Blenkinsop if a couple passed through St. James Passage from Orange Market. 2. The "watchboy" of Aldgate Station. 3. PC Halse 4. PC Smith 5. PC Spicer 6. Sgt. Steve White Are there any other names that should be on this list? Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 06:21 am | |
To All, Here is a newspaper report pertaining to this subject:
Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 11:37 pm | |
The mystery City PC of Mitre Square 1. The man in a suit who inquired of Blenkinsop if a couple passed through St. James Passage from Orange Market. 2. The "watchboy" of Aldgate Station. 3. City Detective Daniel Halse 4. Met PC William Smith 5. Met PC Robert Spicer 6. Met Sergeant Steve White 7. The City PC who interviewed two venders and recorded their description of the couple seen at Orange Market. Are there any other names that should be on this list? Robeer
| |
Author: Robeer Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 11:41 pm | |
To all, The 'watchboy' story is very interesting, but there are some questions that need to be answered. In this scenario Kate Eddowes headed for Aldgate Station not Mitre Square. So did JtR. If he left Berner Street why did he head for Aldgate Station? Was it a known location for prostitutes that time of night? Or was a frustrated JtR headed home until he saw Eddowes at the station? The story must fit the timing or the police would not take it seriously. The story says the man returned 'shortly' after leaving the station. Would JtR have time to leave the clues at Goulston Street and get back to Aldgate Station in a short time? Does anyone know the train schedules for that night? This might indicate the clues on Goulston St were missed the first time around by the police. Or that JtR returned to Aldgate Station but did not catch a train for some reason and then went to Goulston Street. If Eddowes picked up JtR at Aldgate Station why did they go to Mitre Square? Were there no other locations near the train station that would provide the necessary dark corner? Maybe the empty houses along Mitre Street were the attraction. If so, why go by Duke Street? Any ideas on the Aldgate Station scenario? Robeer
| |
Author: John Dow Friday, 21 June 2002 - 05:38 am | |
Monty said: >As you have stated earlier, it doesnt take 45 >mins to get to Mitre sq, so what was he doing in >those 25-30 mins ?? Looking for a prostitute to kill, I'd expect. See my post in the "Long Liz and Dutfield's Yard" thread John D
| |
Author: Jon Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 12:23 pm | |
Robeer My appologies for not being around to answer your question.... "Jon, That is a very interesting question. Where did you find this information? I consider this a significant issue. Harvey had two long narrow passages to inspect on his beat. I would presume he would need the lantern for both, if nothing else for his own protection. Wonder if there is anyway to research this question further? I came across several references to policemen using their lanterns among the news articles on this site.... http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/index.html Sorry, I did not note which ones as I was not looking for anything special. I just came across them while selecting various reports to read. Regards, Jon
| |
Author: The Viper Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 12:38 pm | |
The best way to do this is to use the Casebook's Press Report Search facility. 1). Set the Match field = Boolean. 2). Key the string "bulls-eye or bullseye" into the Find field (without quotes of course). 3). Hit Search button. When you've finished reading those, replace the Find string with "lantern not bullseye" and see what else there is. They say there's a future in IT training ;-) Regards, V.
|