|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:21 am: | 
|
Hi,
I believe this to be a serious question, as it is widely assumed either 'Jack' was a serial killer or a sexual killer.
It is also widely accepted that the actual act of mutilation was his prime concern, and this was acted out in all its gore at millers court.
My question is .
If the act of full mutilation was his thrill why did he not target street walkers that had their own accomodation like Mary kelly, i should add that finding that type of prostitute in that area would have been tougher but not impossible.
But in the west end there would have been much more opportunety to secure the services of such a person, so the question arises, Why did he stick to Whitechapel?.
A obvious reason would be that he was of the local working class that would have not have [through appearence] been able to operate in the west end, or his features were so repugnant that he was unable to gain access to a better class of streetwalker.
That is why I would eliminate anyone of a higher class of person as being a candidate for 'Jack'
for that type of suspect would have surely carried out the murders in a more suitable place in order that he could carry out his revolting urges.
I Would therefore say our man was a person who had no choice but to murder in the very area he resided in.
Regards Richard. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Very good thinking, Richard. Things I've thought of but never put together in quite that way. The theory of a West End toff slumming looks attractive until you realize that such a person would not choose such a high risk environment unless he had to. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 863
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
I think there are other questions:
- there may have been more whores on the street late at night in the East End
- as "dregs" they might have been more amenable to his approaches
- his "fetish" might have involved East End whores
- that was his "parish" - the area he know best.
I could go on.
I like the imagination, I question the conclusion.
But extend the proposition - develop it. Maybe you'll convince us/me.
Phil
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
It's a good train of thought Richard and I agree, Jack was from the East End. When you examine descriptions of the East End of the time, rather than look at street maps, it is a conclusion you really cannot escape.
Rather than make his way through patroled streets I think it more likely that the killer used the series of allyways and 'local' shortcuts that would be known only to a resident. Most doorways we're no only unlocked but, more often than not, actually left open presenting many alternatives to the streets.
A 'slummer' would not have the knowledge required for this and even if he LOOKED the part he would betray himself as soon as he spoke. It is perhaps interesting to note that out of what little conversation witnesses heard, none of them pointed out an 'accent'.
When looking at a map of the murder sites you often wonder 'why such a small area?'.I think this killer had a constraint and the constraint was TIME. Maybe,rather than is usually supposed, this killer was actually at work when he commited these crimes, with the exception of Kelly, when he had been the day off for the Lord Mayors Parade? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Don't faint - I actually agree with Phil.
This was a serial killer who preyed on women who were weak, vulnerable and unfortunate - due to poverty, sickness or alcoholism.
We don't know that this wasn't precisely why he operated on the anonymous streets of the East End, or that it didn't play some part in his thinking.
I do think that if Jack didn't actually live and/or work among his chosen prey, he would nevertheless have got to know the streets like the back of his hand well before ever contemplating murder there - a pre-requisite to perfect ripping.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4022
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
I don't believe for a moment that Jack used the back-alleys and small streets to the extent that some imagine. I think he actually used the main roads, which are all accessable from the murder sites. Using the main roads would be a rather fast, efficient and natural way to move about from place to place and he probably could blend into the environment quite easily. The East End was not the maze of alleys as some people wants us to believe.
As for why not choosing other victims working indoors from their room ... well, the easiest answer is probably that they were practically non-existent. Most of them had temporary lodgings in doss houses, and if he chose his victims at random, then he took the first one that suited his needs at that very moment. I don't think he would have waited for someone to come along that had her own room, and if that were his intentions, then he probably would have been forced to wait for quite a while.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Glenn
As for why not choosing other victims working indoors from their room ... well, the easiest answer is probably that they were practically non-existent.
But I think Richard's original point was that if the killer had operated in the West End, it would have been more common for prostitutes to ahve indoor accommodation. I suppose that's true, and if so it seems a good point to me.
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Guys,
Judging the 'openess' of the murder scenes, I feel the victim was primary, not location.
Just my view.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
All,
I think Glenn's assessment is accurate. Richard's proposal is interesting, yet I don't know how much the killer would have to know about the intricacies of the east end to prey on victims there. Why the east end? It's a valid question, but the solution may be as simple as this: Women were cheap, and available, and he had good luck there the first time. Why go anywhere else? The killer could have been from anywhere, and after finding his first prostitute so accomodating and so easily butchered, he decided to come back again
and again. If I was a fisherman, and was trying my luck on a lake for the first time, and found a nice shady area where the walleyes were biting ferociously, and I was getting my limit, why would I want to go elsewhere on that lake?
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
There are two issues here:
Availability of suitable victims.
Environment facilitating activity.
The second one changed over time. It is true that if Jack was after old, sick, weak vulnerable drabs Whitechapel was the place to go.
But if he was looking for an environment where he could prey on them easily this was a factor which evolved. At the beginning (Nichols, Chapman) Whitechapel was quite suitable for him, but after that there were committees, patrols, and mobs. This is reflected in the fact that his killings came farther and farther apart. They never caught him but they slowed him down.
If he had been a West End toff and under an irresistable compulsion, he could easily (albeit reluctantly) have turned his attention to other fishponds, but he didnt.
Instead he went for weeks and weeks without killing anyone and I believe it created huge frustration for him. He was so mad at George Lusk he purposely took a kidney from KE just so he could send it and taunt him.
I'm with Richard on this one. Jack found a good fishing spot, but then the farmer who owned the land kept chasing him away. The only reason he came back to that spot was he had to.
After the double event it took him weeks and weeks before he found a victim he could safely kill and cut up indoors, and he had to accept a tradeoff. She was not old, weak and vulnerable like the others but she would have to do.
(Message edited by diana on September 16, 2005) |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Diana,
While your logic is sound, it is possible to think of the Ripper as someone who really tried to stop himself from murdering, hence the growing separation of time between canonical murders, but struggle though he might, he eventually gave in to the beast.
It would have to be accepted that he was coherent and rational most of the time to believe that hypothesis. I do believe he was coherent and rational most of the time, and perhaps there were external factors that caused the beast to rise. It could have been any kind of trigger. Perhaps it was his mother-in-law (always a good person to blame, or maybe it was absynthe.
Of course, it's all speculation, and we don't know for sure he sent a kidney to lusk.
I think he stayed in the fishing spot because it became a known quantity.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2455
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
I like Richard"s imagination here too.Thinking about it though,a couple of things come to mind:
-like a cat,Jack may have simply got something out of being predatory,at dead of night!He seems to have gone for a certain "type",as Monty implied above.
In the West End the "Brothels" would surely have been more "protective" of the women there.It wouldnt have been simple to set about gruesomely killing and mutilating.Few prostitutes would have been so very well off as to own a Mayfair pad of their own-if they did they would again surely have had protectors?
Natalie
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
The whole point of the thread was to imply that 'Jack' if inspired by mutilation [ as the majority of members of this casebook agree] had to seek someone like Mjk on each of his murderous ventures for full satisfaction as he surely would have reached with the butchery of kelly.
My interpretation of this is the west end or indeed many more affluent areas would have given him a better chance of achieving the same satisfaction as Millers court.
Yet he chose the dim streets in Whitechapel a area densly populated with a huge presence of police and vigilante also.
My reasoning is that the killer had no oppportunety to venture elsewhere because of funds , appearence [ attire] and i even suggested that the middle aged victims [ kelly apart] were proberly by his appearence [looks ] the best chance he had of obtaining a unfortunate.
Therefore he stayed in the same area he resided for His financial situation, or his lack of respectable clothing or mayby his not so attractive features , mayby even a disability.
Regards Richard. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
We know that Jack continued to kill in the East End even as the police presence there increased. Has anyone ever calculated how many prostitutes were plying their trade in the area at the time? The point that I am trying to get at is that the police knew that Jack was targeting prostitutes. They increased their patrols and had the help of members of the Citizen's Committee. If the police had extrapolated Jack's geographic kill zone (based on the location of the murder sites), how hard would it have been to watch the number of prostitutes in that given area? By the nature of their profession, prostitutes need to be visible to attract clients. They probably ducked into a doorway or something if they saw a PC coming their way but what about PCs in plain clothes or members of the citizens committee hanging out in pubs and on the streets? They could easily tell which women were prostitutes (I would hope). Were there simply too many prostitutes to keep an eye on to any realistic extent?
c.d. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
The East End was not the maze of alleys as some people wants us to believe.
I agree,only to a point though. Maybe it was not the maze of alleys but it was certainly a maze.As I pointed out before, the doors that were left open would offer shortcuts to a 'local' who knew them and by all accounts there were many many places that did not even close their doors at night let alone lock them.
Moreover I think this killer knew the local police beats too, the extra draft might have thrown him a little but not much, the extra men on the beat could well account for the gap between Eddowes & Kelly too, maybe he TRIED to find a woman with her own room simply because the streets had become too risky?
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Howdy
I mentioned on another thread that a quick look at the map indicates that all sites associated with JTR were pretty much near larger streets - they hardly happened in the depths of the slums. They are all within a relatively short distance of a "major" thoroughfare. Surely if he was as familiar with the area as is assumed he would have concentarted on the areas in the west and south west of the map (at http://www.casebook.org/victims/map.html#)
where life would have been much easier for him and he could have spent a bit of time indulging himself without/with less fear of detection ? It seems the victims chose the sites where he did his deeds - at least some of them. A man familiar with the area would surely have taken control and chosen the site himself. It cant be that difficult to convince a semi-drunk desperate for money prostitute to go a bit deeper in to a more secluded spot.
He may have been familiar with the bigger streets of the area but I do not see any eveidence that he was some kind of expert on the back streets of Whitechapel. He could just as easily have been someone who knew where the main thoroughfares were and centred his activities just off them.
Not one event happened more than one or two short streets away from the biggest streets of the area.
I dont think the constraint was time. If it was then he surely wouldnt have had time to head off for another victim after Liz Stride (assuming she was one of his).
NOt being from the East end did not deter Macnaghten from fingering Druitt. I dont remember any police officer having laid out "being a local" as a necessary condition. If he had killed someone in the warren of streets between Commercial road and St george Street I would say fair enough.
Looking at Charles Booth’s Map of London Poverty, 1889 and the killing sites also calls into question the observation that "It is telling that many of the Whitechapel murders occurred in the areas marked in darker (i.e. poorer) colours." (made here: http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/maps.html)
I dont see that either. Bucks Row is a mixture of colours, Mitre Square has none, Millers court was MJK's choice of location I assume, Hanbury Street seems respectable so we are left with Goerge yard Buildings and Dutfield Yard lying in fairly dodgy areas. George yard buildings was Martha Tabram and there is no evidence she was a JTR job so we are left with Elizabeth Stride who also may not have been JTR and even if she was, the impression I get is that the place she was killed just happened to be convenient. In fact it could show how unfamiliar JTR was with Whitechapel that he would do his deed so close to a road instead of plunging into the darkness with his victim.
The conclusion therefore could be drawn that there is a good possibility that JTR was avoiding dodgy areas (as a man not expert in things Whitechapel would ), only venturing into them for MJK who was picking the site and gives all th esigns of a man NOT familiar with the Whitechapel slums
Mr P..
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
Howdy
I mentioned on another thread that a quick look at the map indicates that all sites associated with JTR were pretty much near larger streets - they hardly happened in the depths of the slums. They are all within a relatively short distance of a "major" thoroughfare. Surely if he was as familiar with the area as is assumed he would have concentarted on the areas in the west and south west of the map (at http://www.casebook.org/victims/map.html#)
where life would have been much easier for him and he could have spent a bit of time indulging himself without/with less fear of detection ? It seems the victims chose the sites where he did his deeds - at least some of them. A man familiar with the area would surely have taken control and chosen the site himself. It cant be that difficult to convince a semi-drunk desperate for money prostitute to go a bit deeper in to a more secluded spot.
He may have been familiar with the bigger streets of the area but I do not see any eveidence that he was some kind of expert on the back streets of Whitechapel. He could just as easily have been someone who knew where the main thoroughfares were and centred his activities just off them.
Not one event happened more than one or two short streets away from the biggest streets of the area.
I dont think the constraint was time. If it was then he surely wouldnt have had time to head off for another victim after Liz Stride (assuming she was one of his).
NOt being from the East end did not deter Macnaghten from fingering Druitt. I dont remember any police officer having laid out "being a local" as a necessary condition. If he had killed someone in the warren of streets between Commercial road and St george Street I would say fair enough.
Looking at Charles Booth’s Map of London Poverty, 1889 and the killing sites also calls into question the observation that "It is telling that many of the Whitechapel murders occurred in the areas marked in darker (i.e. poorer) colours." (made here: http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/maps.html)
I dont see that either. Bucks Row is a mixture of colours, Mitre Square has none, Millers court was MJK's choice of location I assume, Hanbury Street seems respectable so we are left with Goerge yard Buildings and Dutfield Yard lying in fairly dodgy areas. George yard buildings was Martha Tabram and there is no evidence she was a JTR job so we are left with Elizabeth Stride who also may not have been JTR and even if she was, the impression I get is that the place she was killed just happened to be convenient. In fact it could show how unfamiliar JTR was with Whitechapel that he would do his deed so close to a road instead of plunging into the darkness with his victim.
The conclusion therefore could be drawn that there is a good possibility that JTR was avoiding dodgy areas (as a man not expert in things Whitechapel would ), only venturing into them for MJK who was picking the site and gives all th esigns of a man NOT familiar with the Whitechapel slums
Mr P..
|
Matti Kurumaa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hi,
As my mothers father visited Buffalo Bills Circus
during its stay in London - he later said that JTR was an indian.
It was kind of salvation work for the unfortunates - and their some inner part had to be removed so they could live a decent life in the 'other side' and not go on with life uncomprehensive for an indian(s).
This explains rumors that concerned royalty; if
the killer was known person from BBC the Queen had to belittle and not to irritate our american friends.
Br; Matti |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 901
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Hi Mr. Poster-
You are quite right that the murder locations were all quite near main thoroughfares, but what exactly that means is hard to tell.
One could argue, as you did, that it points to someone not familiar with the area, but if the victims picked the spots then it doesn't necessarily mean that either. Prostitutes would go where the customers were, which would be closer to streets with more foot traffic. Once an encounter was arranged neither the john or the mary would likely want to go weaving in and out of back alleys far removed from the main streets. The time involved and the inherent risks of assault to both were too great.
The thing that gets me most about these killings is that they still took place in the East End even after hugely increased police coverage, media attention, vigilance committees and so forth. There were inexpensive prostitutes in other areas too. Something kept Jack there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Dan
If Jack was an outsider, and he gained a bit of familiarity with Whitechapel via the first two killings, I think he would stay there, as even a little familiarity is better than the unknown quantity of a new area. This is of course if he wasn't native to the area, or at least wasn't a frequenter of the seedier areas.
I think that is what kept Jack there. We don't even know if he knew about increased police coverage if he just popped in periodically to kill.
We really don't know anything, do we? Wait, we know he wasn't sickert, eddy or Tumblety. that's a start.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 883
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
At least two of the locations - Mitre Square and Bucks Row were near railway stations (Aldgate east and Whitechapel respectively) - what does that tell us?
Depending on how you define a main thoroughfare, most streets in the East End are not too far away from one. But my experience of walking the area a couple of times in the 70s (before the period of huge redevelopment) was that the "backstreets" could be confusing to a stranger - I recall finding my way from Bucks Row (by then Durward St, of course) to Hanbury Street was more complex than I'd thought from the map. I had to get a map out and check - I thought my reading had made me familiar with the layout of the area!!
Finally, I come back to one thought that I have mentioned elsewhere before - that is that the Hanbury St killing may tell us something about Jack's familiarity with the area. Now this is no more than a suggestion - but I think it needs reflecting on.
In the murders at Bucks Row and Mitre Square, there was always somewhere for the killer to run to if disturbed. In MJK's case, Jack had the privacy of being indoors - OK he had nowhere to run to, but the risk of someone bursting in was low.
But look at Hanbury St. There are only two options, as the couple had to gain access to the yard:
a) Jack led the woman there (which almost certainly implies a prior knowledge of the yard, and thus by extrapolation of the area); or
b) Annie led Jack there (more likely, and in tune with the other murders IMHO).
Now, in the latter case, Jack could not see where he was being taken until the backdoor was opened. He had to go through a house, down a longish corridor and the view was still barred to him until the last moment. A stranger could not know whether the yard was overlooked from the read (ie by windows in houses backing on to the yard) or - as has been discussed in another thread reently - whether you couls see through the fence to the neighbouring yards.
At that moment, Jack must have been in a frenzy of anticipation (however well-concealed) as he prepared to throttle and mutilate the women. Not a good time for making instant decisions on a fast escape, when the door and corridor (which could be easily blocked) were the only escape route known to him.
My point is that following Annie to the yard involved jack taking a HUGE risk.
That risk would have been much reduced and more understandable, if one assumes that Jack had prior knowledge of the yard or had been there before. That would imply familiarity with the area. It does not rule out a Druitt candidate, as he might have been there previously with a prostitute.
So, I think there are some strong indications that Jack may have possessed a familiarity with the area, however acquired.
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
In at least one incidence I think it has been inferred as to how and where Jack and his victim met.
When Katherine Eddowes was released from Bishopsgate Police Station the guard said she was headed towards Houndsditch. That would have been walking in a southerly direction.
We can trace Jack's trajectory by starting at Berner Street. He would have been heading west as he fled.
Since Bishopsgate Police Station was northeast of Berner Street, their paths would have crossed somewhere in the neighborhood of Houndsditch and Aldgate High Street.
In that very area is a church called "St. Botolph's". It was commonly referred to as the prostitute's church. Believe it or not the prostitutes in the area used to walk in a circle around and around the church. I suppose that potential customers would stand to the side watching the parade until they saw one they wanted to pick out. Mitre Square is a very short distance from St. Botolph's. I believe that is where they met.
If I were George Lusk, or the police I would have posted somebody at St. Botolph's. It was an obvious spot.
Why then wasn't Jack caught? Because it was impossible to distinguish him from all the other customers who came along that night, the majority of whom were probably locals. A toff would have been remembered. In fairness however, a toff would probably have known about St. Botolph's. Only in retrospect would a patroller or cop have said, "I remember the bloke she went off with." and proceded to give a description. By then Jack would have been long gone.
St. Botolph's was on a main thorofare.
While writing this I thought of something else. McNaughten said, "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square) . . ." Could this person have been posted at St. Botolph's with instructions to note the description of every customer who went off with a prostitute?
(Message edited by diana on September 18, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 885
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 9:46 am: |
|
Diana,
The flaw in your argument is in the sentence:
We can trace Jack's trajectory by starting at Berner Street. He would have been heading west as he fled.
But that assumes a "double event". If jack did NOT kill Stride, his approach to Eddowes could have been made from any direction. if you do not question the stride killing as a Ripper murder - fine. But the conclusion you reach still rests on an unproven assumption, which I find dangerous and potentially misleading.
There is a big "IF" in your reasoning which needs to be made clear.
Phil
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
I tend to consider Stride as genuine because if you look at the eyewitness descriptions the only two that match are Schwartz and Lawende. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 887
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
I know you consider Stride a JtR victim - but you should still be careful.
We would not say with any certainty that Jack left Bucks Row, Hanbury St or Dorset St and went in a certain direction. Why? because we do not know. We should be equally cautious of his movements before Eddowes death - it is speculation, NOT certainty. The only place we KNOW he was after a murder, is Goulston St, where he passed Wentworth Dwellings - and we only know that because he dropped something there that ties it to the murder. But exactly when - before it was found by the police - and why remain unknown.
For those of us who are increasingly uncertain of Jack's responsibility for Stride's death, your speculation is nonsense.
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Assuming for the sake of argument that Stride was not canonical, we still have Eddowes heading off in the direction of St. Botolph's when released from Bishopsgate. She did not continue south of Aldgate High Street because her body was found slightly to the northwest of the intersection of Houndsditch and Aldgate High Street.
Two possible things happened.
1. She changed direction and headed west when she got to one of the little cross streets that would have taken her to Duke Street and then to Mitre Square. This would only have happened if she had met Jack before ever getting to Aldgate High Street. If the map at the front of the A-Z is correct then the most direct route to the square would have been through the northerly entrance. In fact, once she got south of that entrance the only way to cross from Houndsditch to Duke would have been Aldgate High.
2. She kept going till she got to St. Botolph's and met Jack there where they agreed to do business. They then proceeded west on Aldgate High to Duke Street and thence to the square.
She was seen by Lawende et.al. at the Duke Street entrance which precludes her having met Jack at the northern end of Houndsditch.
She either met Jack at the southern end of Houndsditch very close to Aldgate High and very close to St. Botolph's or she met him at St. Botolph's.
If Jack (no matter what direction he came from) was going to look for a prostitute in the neighborhood of Mitre Square, would he go to St. Botolph's or go wandering up Houndsditch?
Then there is the time issue. The trip from the police station to the Church Passage was less than a mile. She was seen at the station at 1:00 and at the entrance to Church Passage at 1:34. I don't think it would take that long unless she stopped to pick  s!
But if she went to the church and paraded around for awhile and then met Jack, and then the two of them agreed to go to Mitre Square, and then they went west on Aldgate High Street and north on Duke Street to the entrance of Church Passage, yes that works. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 890
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Dream on - because that is all your post is. It has NO factual basis whatsoever. You may feel it works logically for you - and that is fine - but we just do not know what Eddowes did or why - only that she MAY have been seen by Lawende and Co close to Mitre Square.
All else is conjecture.
But who am I to deny you your fantasy, Diana?
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hold your horses, Phil, (how's things, old boy?)
Although I don't share her genuine belief (as you know) in Stride as a Ripper victim, I actually think Diana's focus here on where the women actually may have met their killer initially and where they picked their clients up are valid and interesting. We know that St Botolph's was a common pick-up place for the prostitutes, so therefore it is logical to assume that the Ripper knew about it, and that he maybe met some of his victims there (note that it appears like Stride and Mary Kelly had their own spots - Stride, at least that night, on Berner Street and its vicinity and Mary Kelly generally outside the Ten Bells). But the others we can't really say, and I think St Botolph's (which is situated convieniently close to some of the murder sites, not to mention Mitre Square) sometimes is forgotten too easily.
Fact remains, that - regardless of Stride - it remains a mystery why Eddowes (unless we want to believe in the questionable theory that Eddowes went to Mitre Square because she knew who the killer was and had an appointment with someone for that reason) went to Mitre Square instead of going home, since she knew John Kelly was waiting for her. Since her movements from the time she left the police station and up til she was seen by Lawende & Co, is a blank canvas, I guess it is up to each person to make her or his own speculations as long as they are built on some kind of reasoning and logic (since no solid facts exists in that regard), like maps and timings. As long as we do that, every speculation is okay, and let's remember that we have no facts there.
Diana,
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Lawende's and Schwartz's description correspond with each other. Besides the peaked cap (which was a common headgear among the working class), there is really no extraordinary features that makes those two guys stand out from any other man in East End at the time - except from the red neckerchief Lawende saw on the 'sailor-like' guy, but then again, Schwartz doesn't mention that at all. Witness descriptions are unreliable and can't in themselves be proof of anything, unless they correspond on very extraordinary details.
I agree with Phil, that too many speculations are made, based on that Stride was a Ripper victim and taking for granted that there really was a double event when we are discussing Eddowes. Which is why I find Diana's last post interesting.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2462
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Interesting thread and some intriguing ideas thrown up by Diana ,I do agree Glenn.One thing I noticed though in your mention of the headgear.Time and again the records of witnesses
refer to a "deer stalker" cap.This type of cap,with a peak both back and front is depicted in drawings of Sherlock Holmes,and was used mostly by the Gentry,not the working class,for -Hunting/shootin" and fishin"-together with pluss fours etc.
Phil,
Dont forget if Jack had been an extremely agile young man he could have vaulted the back fence that backed onto the cowfield of 29 Hanbury Street-or vaulted any of the other back yard fences actually.It was the proven case
with Thomas Cutbush who vaulted walls with ease when he escaped from the asylum in 1891 and later leapt over peoples back yard walls to escape being caught.
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4026
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
Natalie,
Yes, but I wasn't talking about the deerstalker, but the ordinary peaked cap, an item that was spotted by both Lawende and Schwartz.
Elisabeth Long is the ONLY one who speaks of a deerstalker hat, as far as I know, so I wouldn't say that this type of hat was mentioned 'time and time again'.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2463
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
then you must have overlooked the description given by PC William Smith,452H......He saw a man and a woman whom he later identified as Elizabeth Stride on the pavement opposite the club.The woman he noticed,had a flower pinned to her jacket.The man about 5ft 7ins and wore "a dark overcoat and dark trousers and was wearing "a hard felt deerstalker hat".He had a newspaper parcel in his hand.He was clean shaven and appeared respectable and PC Smith guessed his age as about 28..this is from Paul Beggs book The facts page 150-----oh and ofcorse Mr Astrakhan had a "newspaper parcel"-was respectably dressed but not with a "deerstalker hat".However,Donald Rumbelow has provided two photographs in his latest book as well as his previous book of the famous "deerstalker"---on no less gentile figures than HRH The Duke of Clarence and alongside this one of MJ Druitt wearing what looks very like one.HRH Clarence even has his "Huntin,Shootin and Fishin gear-this time a fishing rod-in his LEFT hand!!!
- its interesting Glenn because this description is SO similar to that of Elizabeth Long"s----the dark clothing,the "deerstalker" hat and the height----the age she put at over 40 but she didnt see his face. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
Nats,
In my experience, witness IDs are pants.
Id be interested to know if Longs ID was published in a broad spectrum of newspapers.
Now the only ID Id take note of is the witness IDs of the man with Stride and Eddowes I must admit.
Then Again, is Stride a canonical?
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4027
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
True, I overlooked PC Smith's account, I admit, but my point here was the peaked cap, since Diana's point concerned the sightings by Schwartz and Lawende specifically.
I don't know how common a deerstalker was in the city; I would imagine it was a type of country headgear, unless I am a victim of cliches here, so I agree on that the deerstalker is interesting, although only Long mentions a deerstalker, especially since I think it's possible that Mrs Long and Lawende may have been the two most likely ones to have seen the murderer.
However, fact remains that a peaked cap in a working class environment is a pretty useless detail in a witness description, and so is 'dark clothing' (which fits hundreds if not thousands of male people in the area). Unless the witness descriptions contain more extraordinary details, they can't act as important clues.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 892
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Natalie - given that he could not see down a passage and through a closed door, how could jack have known that the fence was "jumpable"? And in exactly what circumstances would he have vaulted it, given that exit would either be over more fences or through an unknown house.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I quote again from The Facts:
re the Chapman Murder
.....she[Elizabeth long]was unable to describe the man,whose face she hardly saw ...except to say he was dark ....."He wore a dark brown deerstalker hat"[ie a cap with a peak both back and front]...and she thought a dark coat.....
he had an overall shabby genteel appearance.
PC Smith who is thought to have been the policeman who Machnaghten was referring to when he said -"noone ever saw the ripper except possibly the City PC... etc,[except he wasnt City!]
Anyway PC Smith"s account of the sighting he himself believed he had of Elizabeth Stride and her man friend ,between 12.30 and 12.35 that night, definitely describes a similarly dressed man and definitely refers to his " hard felt deerstalker hat" and "respectable" appearance.
Surely then, neither Elizabeth Long or PC Smith were
thinking that the man"s clothes or demeanour were those of a" typical working class man" of that time or they would have used different terminology than "shabby genteel" or "respectable".
I take your point about the Schwarzt/Lawende descriptions.However the police didnt appear to put much store by Schwartz who by some accounts was a rather "theatrical" character -whatever that means and they didnt call him as a witness at the inquest as you know.
Phil,
I have an old 1894 Ordnance Survey Map of Whitechapel,Spitalfields and the Bank.It shows quite clearly that 29 Hanbury Street backed onto a Cowfield.Given the height of the fences at the sides I would have thought that 6 or 7 ft would have been the highest a wall or fence would have been and well able to be scaled by a fit man in his 20" or early 30"s.It is recorded fact that Thomas Cutbush escaped the Asylum in March 1891 in this way and then went on to leap over the boundary fences and walls of houses when he was being chased.His agility was mentioned several times.
Best Wishes
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2467
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
PS Phil,
If you are talkingabout the Chapman murder in Hanbury Street,I have seen the depth of similar houses.The hall passages were not that long-some twenty feet only-the houses being tall-two storied,rather than wide or deep.
Sunrise would have been at 5.25 that morning and it would have been getting light before this.As soon as the back door was open light would have flooded in
and there was probably a fan light above the back door anyway letting light int o the passage.
I spoke to some builders in Fournier Street when I was doing the painting of 29 Hanbury Street-"Annie Chapman talking to a stranger",its quite accurate viz a viz how the scene would have looked.It was last Winter and the owner of a set of such houses as those in Hanbury Street allowed me in to take photos and took me round the "Master Builder"s House"which he owned in Fournier Street.It is apparently almost the only one without the famous silk weavers glass attics.It was quite wonderful-all woven tapestries on the walls from 1708,candelebras,
never had electricty-still doesnt-just gas.Its next to Nicholas Hawkesmors House -also still beautifully preserved and backing onto Christchurch which he ofcourse designed.
I have some photos of all this and will take them to Brighton.If you are going I will be able to show you them.
Anyway,back to the main point-all the houses in that quarter were designed by the same architect and built under the foremanship of this Master Builder.They are all several stories tall,and quite shallow from front to back.The staircase arrangement is to one side-rather unusual when you see it.Some are grander than others but Hanbury street still has all the houses on the opposite side so you have a pretty good idea of how number 29 looked.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 894
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
Natalie,
I have no issue whatsoever about the possibility that Jack MIGHT have been able to leap the fence; or what maps showed (and the facts were).
My (perhaps narrow) point is about the perception from the murderer's point of view. If he did not see the layout of the yard from where he stood in the street - and the door automatically closed itself on a spring did it not?)then a high level of risk was involved on his part in going with the woman.
That risk was wholly different to those in Bucks Row or Mitre Square (alternatie exits obvious) and different in kind to MJK (if the same man was responsible) was was indoors and risks were offset by relative privacy.
Neither, I think, does similarity of other houses resolve this - unless it is argued that Jack new them, and thus we come again to his being familiar to some degreee with the area.
IMHO there is a subtle, but nonetheless potentially important, point here. That Jack's preparedness to enter a high risk (because unseen) place, could throw light on his willingness to take risks or alternatively, strongly suggest some degree of familiarity with the area or that house or similar houses.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2468
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Phil,
I see what you are focussing on now.
My own impression of Hanbury Street altered considerably after two visits last Winter.Before that I had a vague idea that Jack may have either been a Spitalfields/Whitechapel local or a man who knew the places in Whitechapel frequented by prostitutes because he went looking-even stalking and casing certain haunts such as 29 Hanbury St which I am sure was used to do "busines" between the hours of midnight and 4 to 5 am-a point brought out at the inquest by John Richardson.He was possibly a bit frustrated by his mother"s naivety[ very religious who trusted her neighbours so much she never locked the door].George Yard Buildings/Gunthorpe Street another such place where vagrants slept and prostitutes too .
Other haunts seem to have been around places with gates set back a bit,quiet and lonely and like Mitre Square off or near to darkened passage ways-Dutfields Yard,Woods Buildings,etc-even Mary Kelly"s place was via a passage way.
So in terms of location ,then yes ,I too think Hanbury Street seems to have carried more risk.But if Jack had been on the look out-maybe even watched a few couples go in-and then reappear,
he may have gone and had a look for himself first and been on the look out for the first likely looking,
near vagrant woman he could pick up-or be picked up by if you prefer.
However,I noticed the Old Hanbury Street Hall
which was used as a meeting place by all the radical/political types[William Morris etc] of that time-it has an inscription about it is almost directly opposite where number 29 stood.
This made me wonder again about the venues being so close to these radical joints - this Christchurch Hall opposite no.29 which has a plaque outside- it was THE meeting place hired out for the great radical and strike meetings of of the 1880"s and 1890"s some of the most momentous events in politics -in 1888-the Match Girls Strike etc .Add that to the reputation for
radicalism that the Berner Street Club had and the famous Toynbee Hall not far behind -Toynbee Hall next to where Martha Tabram was found and there seem to be rather a lot of coincidences!
But it may indeed be just coincidence of course-probably is-but on the other hand it could mean the Ripper was someone who went to such clubs as a member or maybe-more likely as an "undercover agent" such as Tumblety may have been re the Fenians.The murders may even have started as a sideline-he spotted an opportunity when the Toynbee Hall was emptying out kind of thing.Anyway I am fascinated by Hanbury Stret in particular.Its kind of the epicentre of it all-in more ways than one.
Best
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 897
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
The association of Clubs and murder sites, as you say, is intriguing and i have been giving it some thought lately, Natalie, though I have reached no conclusions as yet.
It could just be coincidence, as there is none particularly close to Buck's Row or Dorset St.
I have gone on about the need for more genuine social-historical research in support of the case for sometime now (far more use than constant return to conspiracy theories, in my view). It would be interesting to know what time these clubs emptied out - the time of Chapmen's murder seems impossible for someone leaving a hall to be responsible. But I have often wondered whether it was usual for respectable businessmen like Lawende and Levy to be leaving their club at the time they did (which was only hours after the end of the Jewish Sabbath - sunset on the Saturday).
Looking at the types of suspects (rather than individuals):
A Druitt-type might, I suppose have been a do-gooder, and frequented Toynbee Hall, or socialist clubs, and thus have been in the area, and familiar with it to a degree - even have used prostitutes...
I don't though see a Kosminski-type as being someone with a connection to such institutions - unless hanging around to "beg" from the more prosperous individuals using them.
Someone like Sickert (though I don't for a moment think him a suspect) might have gone to such places for atmosphere, to sketch faces and environments - we know the music hall fascinated him...
As you say clubs of this type might have been a good cover for fenian-type activities - so a mary Kelly (if involved) or a Tumblety might have gone along...
Certainly such places would have been sort of magnets for middle-class people to come to the East End... so a Jack from that background might have known the areas around such clubs and how to get to and from them, if not all the byeways and back alleys...
I must ponder more, I think.
Thanks, Natalie,
Phil |
Jim Leen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:58 am: |
|
Hello Everybody,
It's been a while since I've posted, mainly because I lost all my notes and then other things took up so much more of my time.
However, some may say unfortunately, my notes recently turned up again, as well as a rekindled interest in the case.
One thing that I found was an unfinished essay that discussed this very topic: why Whitechapel. Hopefully the Cabernet will stay in the bottle long enough to allow completion and, hopefully, submission to the site.
To cut a long, and mundane(?), treatise very short, I concluded that the location was a provocation. Space constricts the full argument, but consider:
Brady Street - site of a Jewish Cemetery.
Glory of Israel Synagogue at 50a Hanbury Street
Spitalfieds Great Synagogue, Fournier St.
Sons of Warsaw Synagogue, 17 Wilkes Street
The Great Synagogue, Duke's Place.
Conspiracy theorists, who me? never, may discern something of a patter.
Thanking you
Jim Leen
|
ohnjay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
is it possible that JtR was not a serial killer and in fact was after one particular person and the rest were red herrings to cover the fact |
b.a.k.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
the whole point of carrying out the crimes in a public place is
a, the thrill,
b, the sense of power, doing what you want where and when you want,
c, maybe even the need to be caught, |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Hi Diana - smart lady, because the killer, dropping the apron in GS, has him going BACK in the direction he was heading when he met Eddowes - home? |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Dream on - because that is all your post is. It has NO factual basis whatsoever. You may feel it works logically for you - and that is fine - but we just do not know what Eddowes did or why - only that she MAY have been seen by Lawende and Co close to Mitre Square.
All else is conjecture.
But who am I to deny you your fantasy, Diana?
Phil
DAM but your rude!
How do you think crimes actually get solved genius?
It begins with speculation which leads to investigation which leads to witnesses/evidence/informers.
Throughout these forums time and time again you keep prattling on about 'evidence' and telling people that they are idiots.WAKE UP! there will never BE any evidence without specualtion.The chances of proving 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Elizabeth Stride was killed by the same man who killed Catharine Eddowes vanished in 1888 or dont you actually realise this?
Someone,somewhere will one day come up with a speculative theory and everything may suddenly fall into place but we will NEVER be able to prove it.
YES it's conjecture, and having you point it out in almost every thread on these boards is tiresome in the extreme. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Phil
I don't though see a Kosminski-type as being someone with a connection to such institutions - unless hanging around to "beg" from the more prosperous individuals using them.
I wonder whether that's quite right. Kosminski was certainly in a terrible state by the time he was sent to the asylum, but he picked food out of the gutters because he was mentally disturbed, not out of necessity. I think the evidence about his in-laws points to them being respectable tradesmen, rather than the "low class" Jews of Anderson's narratives.
And - who knows? - perhaps radical causes would have interested this kind of man at an earlier stage of his illness. I'm sure we can all think of more mildly eccentric people who are attracted to radical politics. (Maybe I should say were attracted to radical politics, since radical politics seem to be heading for extinction in Britain.)
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 898
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Chris - perhaps you're right.
Steve - if you find it tiresome, that encourages me even more. I must be on the right lines. And no, I am NOT rude - simply forceful. Sorry, if you cannot take robust debate.
Phil
Edited for spelling
(Message edited by Phil on September 21, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2471
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
At 40 Gun Street,Spitalfields,the meeting of the Hebrew Socialist Union-the first separatist Jewish group-took place on 20 May 1876,under Aron Lieberman,considered the prophet of socialist Zionism.
Gun Street lies next to Crispin Street which is at the top end of what was Dorset Street,therefore less than five minutes walk from MJK"s Miller"s Court.
Adjoining Whitechapel Station was once the Working Lads Institute built in 1885[Robert Clack put a photo of it on the casebook last year I seem to recall].Great Radical meetings were held there especially in the1890"s when speakers included Prince Kropotkin and Rudolph Rocker.
Bucks Row,now Durward Street.Outside the school were great Sunday meetings,both political and Trade Union.
Phil I got this information from the equally great William J. Fishman.His book "The Streets Of East London" is superb!
I really must get his other books,especially the celebrated ,"East End Jewish Radicals 1875-1914.Professor Fishman is thankfully no Zionist just a
wonderful radical chronicler of East End immigrant and political Life.[Please note Chris].
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5027
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
All these links are tempting, but I imagine in the East End it would have been difficult to go anywhere without being near either
1. A radical club of some sort
or
2. A place with a Jewish connection (cemetery, school, synagogue etc)
or
3. A railway station
or
4. A warehouse
to name a few of the links that have been suggested. All very interesting though!
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 901
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:30 am: |
|
Natalie - I have several of Prof Fishman's books (though not those you mention) and I endorse your praise of him.
Robert - you are absolutely right.
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
