Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by DirectorDave 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by harry 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by harry 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (46 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (13 posts)
General Police Discussion: The single source question - (8 posts)
General Victim Discussion: What does this picture remind you of? - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Greetings from the past - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #131  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:26 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Amelia Farmer did not testify that Chapman "took to prostitution at night."
Of course she did Simon. It was, of course, a delicate subject but it was perfectly clear. Let's look at it again shall we:

The Coroner - Is it correct that she got money in the streets?
(i.e. Is it correct that she was a prostitute?)

The Witness - I am afraid that she was not particular how she earned her living. She has told me that she was out late at night sometimes." (i.e. I'm afraid she was and I know this because she told me.)

It's not even controversial!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:29 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi Dave,

But is it likely that he would have killed her out on the street in the early hours of the morning with people like Elizabeth Long and others around going to work etc? Surely it's overwhelmingly likely that she was killed in situ and any blood found in the passageway came from the killer as he made his escape?
Basically why he would "choke hold" her and drag her out the back.
There was no blood in the passage.

Chapman was probably led off Hanbury Street to get her away from prying eyes,possibly with the offer of accommodation now and money at a later time.

Reckon Eddowes was dragged into Mitre Square from one of the Mitre Street houses.
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:34 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
The police did not recognise any of the C5. Nor did they recognise them once they had their names.
This is such a bad point.

Did "The police", whatever you mean by that, all troop into the mortuary one by one to try and identify the bodies of these victims?

Identity was proved by someone who knew the deceased well. No-one asked every single police officer to visit the mortuary to see if they recognised any of these women from the streets. Such an effort would have been pointless in any case unless the officers also knew the real names of the women and could positively identify them by their real name.

Whether the women were prostitutes or not was not the main issue to be resolved in the investigation (and the answer could, in any event, be gleaned from people who knew them, as occurred).
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:38 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Except that, as I posted earlier, Dr Phillips said he made a search of the passage and found no blood. I suspect the report that Simon posted was inaccurate, like the reports of blood on the fence at 25 or of the message left by the killer.

It's possible she was carried unconscious through the passage, of course (or was given a piggy back by her killer, or even that they romped to the back yard in Fatal Attraction style). But it's always easier to get a living person to move than a dead one. And she had already said "yes", according to Mrs Long.
Sorry Joshua

I missed your post.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-22-2017, 04:43 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,216
Default

Hi Joshua,

David's was a really bad point. But never mind.

The Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, confirmed the bloodstains in the passage of 29 Hanbury Street whilst offering the most sublimely ridiculous explanation for their presence—

“There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed.”

And if you believe that, I know a recently deposed Nigerian prince who is eager to put £27 million into your bank account.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-22-2017, 05:56 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,309
Default

This probably won't surprise you, Simon, but I don't see anything too implausible in that explanation. It's at least as believable as the doctor missing the bloodstains, or for some inexplicable reason lying about not seeing any. If they only appeared after he made his search then that explains both his statement and the news reports.
If the packing case is too hard to swallow, how about the blood was deposited in the passage as the body was moved, or on someone's boots as they trudged out?

I'll take a cheque for the £27m.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-22-2017, 09:18 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,216
Default

Hi Joshua,

As you wish.

Prince Odongo will be in touch with you shortly.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:01 PM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 78
Default

Why drag or carry anyone anywhere ? Dragging someone through a passageway in a choke hold to the backyard of Hanbury St only to kill her there increases the risk of her shouting out, or if carried being seen. And why drag the victim out of a house on Mitre Sq only to kill her in said Sq ? The same logic applies, and wouldn't it be safer in the house. Also if the police kept tabs or arrested every poor woman who had to prostitute herself from time to time in Whitechapel the jails and police files would be overflowing. These where very desperate times indeed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:32 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,284
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold

Dead bodies tend to stink a house up,however reckon that's what happened.
Meh,life.
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-23-2017, 02:55 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

Good morning,

Having just read the post from yesterday I am left utterly speechless from some of the lack of reasonable logic used, nor the selective use of sources to support ideas.

Let me be honest here and say I have not read the latest update to Simon's work. This is because I consider that constant updates and recharging for what is to a great extent the same information is not for me in the digital age.

Therefore I can only use the information provided here.

Simon suggests that the body was carried along the passageway, this he supports with part of an article from the Evening News 8th September, this is a journalists report only.
He also supplies a quote from the Manchester Guardian 10th September; however it should be noted that he rejects outright the explanation offered and makes disparaging remarks about any who would consider it.

If there is any other evidence, it is not supplied.

Is there any source data which allows us to examine the suggestion made by Simon?

Well let's see what we do know. From the inquest we have the following:

1. Phillips says there is much blood around the body, this is contrary to what the quote provided by Simon say. He also says there is blood on the fencing and there is NONE in the passageway.

2. Inspector Chandler says there is no blood apart from around the body and on the fencing and wall.

3. The body is at the mortuary before 7am, this is the time Chandler arrives there.


One point we do not know is what time did the Journalist arrive on site and at what point was he allowed to view the passage way? It is I think highly unlikely this was before the body was removed from site.

We have already had one explanation for blood rejected outright, are there others?
Well of course there are:

A. The most obvious explanation is the blood dripped from the body as it was removed down the passageway, if it was in a shell at this point, blood could drip from the underside if it had been placed in blood in the yard or it may just have leaked out.

B. The blood came from the shoes of those who had been in the yard.

C. There was no blood, pure speculation on the part of the Journalist, certainly not unknown, has I have found from the Nichols case.


Let's just take a look at the Evening News and see if there is any more information there.

And yes there is. In a section headed "Special Account" we find the following:

"The latest information goes to show quite clearly that the murder was actually committed in the back-yard of No. 18, Hanbury-street. The front door of this house is never locked at night, as some of the lodgers come home very late at night, and others have to go to their work early in the morning; and for their convenience the door is always left on the latch. "


And in the next paragraph:

"The other theory, that the murder was committed in the street, and then concealed in the yard of No. 18, is disproved by the fact that, whereas there is a horrible mass of clotted blood lying on the spot where the body was found there are no blood-stains whatever, either in the passage of the house or anywhere else in the neighbourhood. "



Now this report gets the address wrong quoting both 28 and 18 ( in both quotes above) Hanbury street. However such mistakes in these early accounts often are made.


It seems clear that the original quote supplied is of very low reliability and why Simon prefers such sources I struggle to understand.

Finally the comments that working on the streets does not mean some form of at least casual prostitution are on the face of somewhat strange.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.