| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 773
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 5:56 pm: |       |
Hi Monty
Thanks for the Ward info. You'd have thought that the Buck's Row yard would have been locked if it was a stable, as long as it was still being used as one at the time.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 259
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
Robert,
Found it.
Browns Stable yard in Bucks Row. It was checked and found to be locked by Neil just before he knocked up Purkiss in Essex Wharf.
Its in Eddlestons book.
I knew I saw it somewhere.
Monty
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 774
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 10:57 am: | |
Thanks Monty. I wonder if it had anything to do with Brown and Eagle.
Of course, this could have been a chance encounter in the street. But if it was a question of one leading the other to the yard, and the yard was regularly locked, then I imagine that he led her - she'd probably have known the gates were locked.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 261
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Robert,
Thinking the same thing about Brown & Eagle last night as I looked it up. I would assume so.
Good point about whos leading who. Polly is going away from her lodgings and I cant see her going that far away on her tod....unless it was in her interests to do so.
I dont follow you on why she would have known the gates were locked. Why didnt she stop him if this was the case ? Why did he take her there if he knew they were locked ?
Judging on Berner St/Clarkes Yard some yards were locked...other not. Im assuming that Browns Stables was locked due to the horses (or other valuables) kept there.
If begs the question that if indeed horses where in the stables at that time would they have been spooked? (I dont know, Im not a horsey person), but would they have reacted?
You answer one question and another comes up eh ?
Have a good weekend mate,
Monty
|
Michael Blayne Raney
Police Constable
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 1:20 pm: | |
Still working on my research re: bonnets, scarves, but now, I have an account!
Mikey |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 776
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
Hi Monty, Mikey
Monty, I meant that as a prostitute she'd probably have known which places were accessible for business and which weren't. But maybe he didn't know, and perhaps said something like "Let's go along here". She'd have followed, and wouldn't have been able to correct him until she saw that he was trying to get into the yard. He might even have mentioned the yard at the start, but she might have been too fuddled to understand.
I don't see why the horses need have been spooked by a scuffle outside the gates. They might have smelt blood, but then there was also a slaughterhouse round the corner. Horses in those days must have smelt blood all the time. But I'm not a horsey person either.
Monty, have a look at Foster's drawing of the Mitre Square corner in the Sourcebook, also the contemporary sketch overleaf : do they look like spikes at the top of that fence? It's just a small point, but if they are actually spikes then people who bothered to have spikes may have bothered to lock their gate - which as you say may explain why she was killed on the street.
Also in the bottom horizontal part of the fence, just overlapping the gate, am I imagining it or could Foster have written something there? It's clearer if you hold the book upside down. It's barely visible in Paul Begg's book.
Mikey, welcome aboard! I find the bonnets intriguing - both Nichols and Stride seem not to have bothered to tie theirs on their heads. But surely there were bonnet snatchers about in those days?
Robert
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 293
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 6:36 pm: | |
Hello All
Caz
An interesting quote about the costermongers and scarves.I hnow a scarve is required wear for a sailor and if a costermonger was say a fish porter, he might be doubly inclined to wear one one. Then again they were so common anyone could purchase one. I don't believe Hutchinson's account, but I wonder where he got the idea for the scarve being flourished.
Oh well, sorry for posing more questions than I can answer without some pretty wild speculation. Don't feel alone Monty.
Someone mentioned the Eddleston book which my bookseller has kindly offered for $85.00. That would be well over a hundred dollars Canadian.I was getting ready to put a second mortgage on the house but I have been informed on another thread to get it through Amazon.U.K.
All The Best
Gary
I hope no-one sustained any losses from the hurricane. We were fine as it headed north. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 262
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 11:06 am: | |
Robert
I understand now. Thank you.
I agree, as far as Im concerned those are spikes at the top of the fence in Mitre sq. Which would point to a security conscious person/organisation so it would be reasonable to suspect the gates were locked. But obviously we cannot take that as read. It doesnt seem that high either, high enough to scale once you've seem PC Harveys lamp coming towards you out of the gloom?
Ive got the PRO pack and a larger copy of Forsters work. I shall have a look at the bottom part of the fence and tell you what I reckon it is. You must have the eyes of a hawk sir !!...and from what Ive heard you have the legs also !!!!
Just a thought, what do you reckon to the idea that one of the disused houses in the square acted as a place for business?
Monty
PS Gary, good to hear you. I was worried.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 791
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I agree he could have scaled the fence and maybe got away like that. We have AP's Cutbush as a possibility, plus any sailor or similarly agile person could probably have scaled that fence. If the gate was locked though, then I don't suppose Kate could have got over it.
I don't see why an empty house couldn't have been used for business. But what's the idea, Monty?
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 266
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 11:12 am: | |
Robert,
I looked and looked but could not see writings of any kind.
From looking at Fosters map & drawings, and also looking at the comments put on the document, it seem to me that the yard is bounded by a brick wall from floor level to around 2-3 ft then it consists of railings. Certainly the words 'wall and railings' are used in the sketch of Eddowes body in situ.
Another thing that struck me about Fosters map is that the gates to the yard also lead to a passage of a house set back from the square. These gates must have been open for access...............or could there have been another enterance to this house ?
One final point Id like to make on Fosters map. Someone has written in pencil the position of Morris (in the warehouse), the fact that there were no lamps at Duke st end of Church passage (which would back up Levys statement that the lights in that area were poor. Incidently, how could Lewande make out what he could in such lighting?). Also noted in pencil is the compass points. North is already in but someone has inputted east south & west.....all incorrectly !!
Does anyone know who has done this ??
No idea on the empty house from me. Its just that it has been mentioned in the past. My problem is that the enterance to this empty dwellings must be from Mitre street side.
Monty
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 297
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Hi Monty
Thanks for the kind words.I'm still alive and kicking.
An interesting thread.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 809
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I'd like to do a long post, so I'll get back to you Wednesday or Thursday.
Gary, hope all the conferences and hurricanes are out of the way now.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 545
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 10:05 am: | |
Robert
Here is the section of fence you mentioned with the marks that you thought might be writing
Chris
 |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 268
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
Robert,
Look forward to it Buddy.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 811
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 4:28 pm: | |
Chris, thanks for that enlargement. Oh well, it was just Foster's shading technique, but thanks anyway.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 816
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi Monty
I have nothing important to say, I’m afraid. Just a few disparate thoughts.
I don’t know who could have scribbled on Foster’s plan. If someone actually wrote that there was no lamp at the Duke St end of Church Passage, that would also bear out Levy’s remark that the spot was better lit since the murder. Perhaps the writer wanted to distinguish the way the site used to be from the subsequent improvements.
Can’t imagine how Lawende got such a good look, unless he was quite close to the couple. It sounds as if they weren’t quite in the passage, if Levy really did make his remark about them to Harris as he came out of the club, and not as he passed them. So if he could see them from the club exit, maybe Lawende got quite close to them –perhaps a bit closer than his nine or ten feet - since they would have been "sticking out" onto the pavement.
Re the yard, Collard said that he searched the back of the empty houses, by which I assume he meant the two looking onto the passageway to the house. If the house next to the yard was also empty, then maybe the gate wasn’t locked. But even if it was empty, the gate might have been locked to protect the yard. It’s odd that the yard doesn’t seem to have had a name – Horner’s Yard, say - so maybe it was just an empty yard, in which case again the gate might have been unlocked. So I’m confused on that one! But I do wonder how on earth houses were left empty, when the landlords could make money by turning them into doss houses.
I’m puzzled why there seems to have been no night watchman from Horner and Co at the inquest. Watkins said he looked into the warehouses on his walk through the Square. Morris said he hadn’t seen Watkins before that night. If they were both telling the truth, then Watkins presumably didn’t look into Morris’s place, since he knew that everything was OK as Morris was there. So it looks from that as if Watkins looked into Horner and Co, and did so because there was no night watchman there. Odd, isn’t it - no night watchman.
Looking at the drawing of Eddowes, it seems that her stockings (more like socks really) were still perfectly in place, yet there was no mention made of garters, so that probably gives an idea of how quickly it all happened and how little struggle there was.
Do you think there’s any chance that it was Mitre Square that figured in Moore’s experiment, when he ringed one of the murder sites with men and then found that people were getting inside the cordon via unknown passageways? Of course, Moore refers to "my men", not City policemen, and also fifty people is a large number to be in the Square. Maybe it was fifty in total, but not all at the same time. Mitre Square seems a logical place for them to have tried this experiment.
Robert
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 270
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
Robert,
Nothing important? Dont assume !
I shall start in order.
I think the pencil writings regarding the lighting at Duke st end of church passage may have helped someone get an idea of what Lewande was seeing. If the lighting was poor then it makes his statement open to question...how sure are you it was a red neckerchief in that light?..that sort of thing. Come to think about it, if (and Im only saying if) the lighting was in question then do you think Lewande would have been used as Andersons witness ?
The yard and empty houses. Im with you all the way....baffling aint it ? I shall think on with that.
The Nightwatchman for Horners?. Again, I just do not know....but I shall look it up and see what I find.
Moores experiment ? Im a little vague on that one but I shall look at it again. But right now, off the top of my head, here are my views. Im assuming its suggested he had the square surrounded and waited to see who could get in and out of the square undetected. I would say its possible. Depends when this was done, day or night. Hussle and bussle of the day its possible to miss people. During the night then I'd look at the houses more closely. We have found a passage to a house ourselves. Question is does it lead directly to a front door or to an entry (similar to the passage at 29 Hanbury St) and out the Mitre st/Aldgate?
50 is a huge number. It would be odd to have 50 people hanging around in that square. Jack would have never attempted it to begin with so that experiment was a pointless one in my eyes. But I shall study the maps again and let you know.
I shall get back to the books tonight.
This is why I like posting you Robert, you give me something to do while Im awake at night.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 824
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi Monty
I find Anderson's witness a puzzle. If only it could be Hutchinson. He claimed to have had a good look at someone whom the police might conceivably have regarded as the Ripper.
But even if Hutchinson was Jewish, and even setting aside the suspicious detail of the description he gave, I find it hard to believe that a Jew would be willing to say that a man he saw looked Jewish, but later refuse to identify him because he was a fellow Jew. If this is how Anderson's witness is supposed to have felt about his co-religionists, he wouldn't have mentioned the Jewish appearance in the first place.
Lewande said he doubted if he'd recognise his man. And Schwartz's man seems to have been an anti-semite. So who is there left?
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 277
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 11:13 am: | |
Robert,
Im intrigued by the 2 unidentified witnesses in St James Square.
Re Moores experiment. I know Moore never stated that Mitre sq was the spot he conducted his surveillence but Im going to see if I can draw up a obs plan for the area. You know, number of men, where stationed, collateral intrusion ect.
You really got me going on that one.
Post it soon.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 859
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Hi Monty
Sounds interesting. You'll need several pints after that lot!
Do you think those two witnesses saw the same couple as Lewande did? If so, either it wasn't Jack and Kate whom Lewande saw, or else Jack and Kate were in St James Square before going on to Church Passage - there doesn't seem enough time for it to be the other way round.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 281
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Robert,
I wasnt clear...sorry.
I mean the witnesses where in St James square themselves and spotted a couple (Jack & Kate??) in Mitre sq via St James passage.
It seems to me that they saw the end of a conversation that Jack & Kate were having. The conversation that Lewande may have observed the beggining of.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 867
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Monty
My fault, I was misremembering something I read in Paley, and also somehow getting the Blenkingsop story mixed up in it too.
This would tie in with the scenario where he's reluctant, she puts her hand on his chest to detain him, and then has to coax him.
Morris was puzzled that he never heard any footsteps. Even if Jack had rubber soled shoes, surely Kate didn't have them too? I think Bob Hinton suggested that Jack might have silenced her then and there, and then carried her into the dark corner.
Re Moore, at the start of Chapter 9 of Paul Begg's "Uncensored Facts" there is mention of huge crowds descending on Mitre Square after the murder, and the police closing the entrances to it. Could that have anything to do with Moore's story? The crowds would have been large enough to account for fifty people getting in, if there were any hidden entrances.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 282
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:13 pm: | |
Robert,
I think your right about Moore's story. I shall read it when I get home.
I think Jacks reluctance would stem from being sighted by Lewande. Whatever Lewande saw he didnt know. Could have seen alot but the fact remained that the group walked past the couple and with Kates persuation he thought what the hell.
Bobs suggestion doesnt work for me. Its a hell of a drag. Would has cost time also. I cant see why Morris was puzzled. People use that square as a walk through, even today. To expect to hear something is a little harsh on himself. It wouldnt be a sound out of the ordinary.....now a scream, thats a different story.
It just goes to show how quick and effective this killer was. He knew what he was doing and where he was doing it. There is a story involving a hero of mine Gary Lineker. He was getting changed after an international game (in which he scored one of his trademark 3 inch tap ins) when Gazza came up to him and and started calling him a lucky so and so. Linekers reply ? "You're right Gazza, and Ive been lucky the 36 other times Ive scored for England as well !!!"
Luck my Ar$@ !
Monty
Still working on that Obs thing...if your interested. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 879
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
Very interested, yes, Monty.
Ah Lineker! Great player. So what you're saying is that Jack was attacking space in Mitre Square!
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 5:43 am: | |
As I understand it then Monty, the theory is that after killing Mary Kelly, Jack decided to take things easy and spent a few years mucking about in Japan not doing very much, then hurt his big toe and decided to retire and spend the rest of his life trying to flog bags of crisps?  |
