Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Batty Street Lodger

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Batty Street Lodger

    From http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:0...lnk&cd=4&gl=uk

    I'm posting this under General, but it can later be transferred to Suspects if desired.

    This is G o o g l e's cache of http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-1352.html as retrieved on 23 Dec 2007 04:51:21 GMT.
    G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
    The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
    This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
    To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=uk


    Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
    These search terms have been highlighted: casebook
    These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: arthur griffiths robert anderson archive


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > "Lodger, The" > The Batty Street Lodger

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PDAView Full Version : The Batty Street Lodger


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter4th May 2006, 01:38 PM
    I noticed that there were no threads under the heading of 'The Lodger' so I thought that it would be nice to discuss the Batty Street lodger story as it appeared in the October 1888 press and was a prominent suspect story that has been rather neglected. It has not been discussed in detail as far as I am aware and I am amazed that that this suspect story had not appeared in a Ripper book prior to 1995 when it was used in the Tumblety book.

    I would like this to be an objective discussion and I am not trying to make a case here. It would just be nice to examine the pros and cons of what appears at face value to be a very strong suspect story as we have, allegedly, a lodger returning home in the early hours of the night of the 'double event' with bloodstained clothing. Unfortunately the police suspect files, suspect arrest reports and general police investigation records are all now missing, stories such as this are impossible to check out in the official records. Yet short of the whole thing being an invention, which I don't think it is and the press reports also indicate otherwise, it really does deserve close scrutiny and discussion. It is, perhaps, the strongest of the lodger stories.

    The story appeared in many papers, but one of the best was that carried in the Daily News of Tuesday, October 16, 1888 (I shall place in bold points I feel are particularly significant) -

    "According to a Correspondent, the police are watching with great anxiety a house at the East-end which is strongly suspected to have been the actual lodging, or a house made use of by some one connected with the East-end murders. Statements made by the neighbours in the district point to the fact that the landlady had a lodger, who since the Sunday morning of the last Whitechapel murders has been missing. The lodger, it is stated, returned home early on the Sunday morning, and the landlady was disturbed by his moving about. She got up very early, and noticed that her lodger had changed some of his clothes. He told her he was going away for a little time, and he asked her to wash the shirt which he had taken off, and get it ready for him by the time he came back. As he had been in the habit of going away now and then, she did not think much at the time, and soon afterwards he went out. On looking at his shirt she was astonished to find the wristbands and part of the sleeves saturated with wet blood. The appearance struck her as very strange, and when she heard of the murders her suspicions were aroused. Acting on the advice of some of her neighbours, she gave information to the police and showed them the blood-stained shirt. They took possession of it and obtained from her a full description of her missing lodger. During the last fortnight she has been under the impression that he would return, and was sanguine that he would probably come back on Saturday or Sunday night, or perhaps Monday evening. The general opinion, however, among the neighbours is that he will never return. On finding the house and visiting it, a reporter found it tenanted by a stout, middle-aged, German woman, who speaks very bad English, and who was not inclined to give much information further than the fact that her lodger had not returned yet, and she could not say where he had gone or when he would be back. The neighbours state that ever since the information has been given two detectives and two policemen have been in the house day and night. The house is approached by a court, and as there are alleys running through it into different streets, there are different ways of approach and exit. It is believed from the information obtained concerning the lodger's former movements and his general appearance, together with the fact that numbers of people have seen the same man about the neighbourhood, that the police have in their possession a series of most important clues, and that his ultimate capture is only a question of time."

    This is the verbatim press story and it would be nice to hear sensible comments about what all this could mean, bearing in mind that the story must have some foundation in fact as the reporter claims to have obtained most of his information from neighbours, in view of the bad English and reticence of the German landlady. I shall be posting some further reports in due course.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    monty4th May 2006, 02:20 PM
    GH,


    According to a Correspondent, the police are watching with great anxiety a house at the East-end which is strongly suspected to have been the actual lodging, or a house made use of by some one connected with the East-end murders


    Police are watching? Why?

    This reminds my somewhat of the Fiddymont report.

    Monty


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    jason_connachan4th May 2006, 02:34 PM
    "She got up very early, and noticed that her lodger had changed some of his clothes. He told her he was going away for a little time, and he asked her to wash the shirt which he had taken off, and get it ready for him by the time he came back............................................on finding the house and visiting it, a reporter found it tenanted by a stout, middle-aged, German woman, who speaks very bad English"


    The conversation between the German speaking landlady who spoke poor English and her lodger seems dubious to me. An attempt at making more of this story by newspapers or neighbours? Note she did not confirm some of the more sinister claims in the neighbours story.

    As with so many of these reports there is quite possibly some truth, and some exaggeration.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter4th May 2006, 02:59 PM
    The following article appeared in the Daily News the next day, Wednesday, October 17 1888 -

    "THE BATTY-STREET CLUE
    The startling story published yesterday with reference to the finding of a blood-stained shirt and the disappearance of a man from a lodging-house in the East-end proves upon investigation to be of some importance. On Monday afternoon the truth of the statement was given an unqualified denial by the detective officers immediately after its publication, and this presumably because they were anxious to avoid a premature disclosure of facts of which they had for some time been gognisant. From the very morning of the murders, the police, it is stated, have had in their possession a shirt saturated with blood. Though they say nothing they are evidently convinced that it was left in a house in Batty-street by the assassin after he had finished his work. Having regard to the position of this particular house, its close proximity to the yard in Berner-street, where the crime was committed, and to the many intricate passages and alleys adjacent, the police theory has, in all probability, a basis of fact. An examination of the surroundings leads to the conclusion that probably in the whole of of Whitechapel there is no quarter in which a criminal would be more likely to evade police detection, or observation of any kind, than he would be in this particular one. At the inquest on Mrs. Stride one of the witnesses deposed to having seen a man and a woman standing at the junction of Fairclough and Berner streets early on the morning of the murder. Assuming that the man now sought was the murderer, he would have gained instant access to the house in Batty-street by rapidly crossing over from the yard and traversing a passage, the entrance of which is almost immediately opposite to the spot where the victim was subsequently discovered. The statement has been made that the landlady of the lodging-house, 22, Batty-street - the house in which the shirt was left - was at an early hour disturbed by the movements of the lodger who changed some of his apparel and went away; first, however, instructing her to wash the cast-off shirt by the time he returned. But in relation to this latter theory, the question is how far the result of the inquiries made yesterday is affected by a recent arrest. Although, for reasons known to themselves, the police during Saturday, Sunday, and Monday answered negatively all questions as to whether any person had been arrested or was then in their charge, there is no doubt that a man was taken into custody on suspicion of being the missing lodger from 22, Batty-street, and that he was afterwards set at liberty."

    and the following in The Manchester Evening News of the same date -

    "...The German lodging-house keeper could clear up the point as to the existence of any other lodger absent from her house under the suspicious circumstances referred to, but she is not accessible, and it is easy to understand that the police should endeavour to prevent her making any statement. From our own inquiries in various directions yesterday afternoon a further development is very likely to take place.
    With regard to the statements current as to finding a bloodstained shirt at a lodging house in Whitechapel, the Central News says: The story is founded on some matters which occurred more than a fortnight ago. It appears that a man, apparently a foreigner, visited the house of a German laundress at 22, Batty-street, and left four shirts tied in a bundle to be washed. The bundle was not opened at the time. but when the shirts were afterwards taken out, one was found to be considerably bloodstained. The woman communicated with the police, who placed the house under observation, the detectives at the same time being lodged there to arrest the man should he return. This he did last Saturday, and was taken to Leman-street Police Station where he was questioned, and within an hour or two released, his statements being proved correct."

    I believe this indicates that the police were certainly keeping the German landlady quiet as far as the press were concerned and that a story was released by them, via the Central News Agency, to try and kill the story. However, it was not going to go away and the following appeared in the next day's Daily Telegraph, Thursday, October 18, 1888 -

    "It was reported yesterday that the police authorities have information tending to show that the East-end murderer is a foreigner who was known as having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy. The place where he now lodges is asserted to be within official cognisance. If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused. Her statements, it is said, are now being investigated. In the meantime the suspected assassin is closely watched."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter4th May 2006, 03:10 PM
    Yes, as with all newspaper reports these stories should be viewed with all the usual caveats, some truth, some exaggeration, maybe even some invention. However, they should be examined with a view to ascertaining any true aspects, any corroboration that may be possible and then weighed as to their possible value. Unfortunately, in view of the dearth of official material on the investigation at ground level it is often all we have to work with. This story seems to contain some interesting and detailed elements that bear looking at and analysing.

    The German landlady, according to the above, told the press very little, but the neighbours, whose advice she had sought, appeared happy to tell the story and had not been warned not to talk by the police. The lodger was apparently foreign and may well have spoken German, thus he would have had no problem in communicating with her. This is a genuine and detailed press story of the time and should be properly assessed for its value, as so many others have been.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter4th May 2006, 03:21 PM
    A further, possibly relevant, report appeared in the Eastern Post of Saturday, October 20, 1888 -

    "On Thursday the City Police had under observation a man whose movements in Whitechapel, Mile End, and Bermondsey are attended with suspicion. A man, who is said to be an American, was arrested at Bermondsey at one o'clock on Thursday morning, and taken to the police station. His conduct, demeanour, and appearance gave rise to great suspicion, and his apprehension and general particulars were wired to the City Police."

    Looking at the above stories points that emerge are that the Batty Street lodger was a foreigner, that a man was arrested on suspicion of being the Batty Street lodger but proved not to be him and was released, that an arrested man released was an American. All very tenuous but, I felt, elements of the story tended to support the idea that the Batty Street lodger was an American. Obviously this is my own opinion and interpretation of the reports but it is a valid, although by no means definite, idea to bear in mind. All in all, in the middle of a month when there was no further Ripper murder committed, an interesting sequence of reported events.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter4th May 2006, 03:44 PM
    Other points that have occurred to me are as follows -

    If the story is correct, and if the lodger was the killer, then it would explain the cessation of the murders for the next few weeks after the 'double event.'

    The main part of the story was based on the hearsay of the neighbours, so we should expect some errors or exaggeration.

    I appreciate that this does not prove that the lodger was the killer, nor does it prove who the lodger was.

    But, this story has niggled at me for years as someone returning to their lodgings in the East End, just after the double killing with bloodstains, certainly would have some explaining to do.

    Bloodstained clothing, in 1888, would be valueless as hard evidence as the blood could not then be analysed and proved to be human. Al they would be able to say was that it was mammalian blood. But it does amount to strong circumstantial evidence.

    The basics of the story, stripped of detail, are -

    A foreign lodger living in Batty Street, which runs parallel with and east of Berner Street, returned home in the early hours of the morning, disturbing his landlady as he did so.

    He left the lodgings the next day leaving behind a shirt with bloodstained cuffs.

    He did not return to the lodgings.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wolf Vanderlinden4th May 2006, 11:39 PM
    The tale of the Batty Street Lodger is a lot more convoluted than most people realize. The story seems to have first hit the press on the 16th of October, as Grey Hunter has shown with the Daily News article. However, other newspapers which ran the story that same day reported that the Lodger had already been identified and cleared. The Daily Telegraph, 16 October, for instance stated “Inquiry was instituted, with the result that the incidents mentioned are said to have been ‘satisfactorily accounted for.’ ” The Manchester Guardian on the same day wrote

    “A statement was in circulation yesterday to the effect that an important clue in connection with the Whitechapel murders had been discovered. The report was based on the circumstance that from a house in the East End a lodger disappeared mysteriously on the day following the perpetration of the two last outrages, leaving behind him a shirt, the wristbands and sleeves of which were saturated with blood. The hope that this might lead to the mystery being cleared up seems, however, to be of a very slender nature, as a telegram received last night states that the lodger clue was investigated by the police some days ago, and that the explanations given in the case were quite satisfactory.”

    This information was also offered in the Daily News (17 October), the East Anglian Daily Times (17 October), and in a Central News Agency story that was reprinted in several papers (the Manchester Evening News for example). So was the Batty Street Lodger identified, arrested, and released after providing a satisfactory explanation to his blood stained clothes? The answer can only be…maybe. I’ll get back to that point later.

    What are we to make of the report found in the Daily Telegraph, the Manchester Guardian (both 18 October) and the Swedish paper Aftonbladet (26 October) that the Lodger “lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused.” Is this supposed to mean the German landlady or is it a garbling of some other suspect? What are we to make of these statements:
    “In the meantime the suspected assassin is closely watched.”(the Daily Telegraph)
    “In the meantime the suspected assassin is "shadowed."…The accused is himself aware, it is believed, of the suspicions entertained against him.” (the Manchester Guardian)
    “[He] is at present under close surveillance.” (Aftonbladet)
    Is this information true i.e. that, once again, the Lodger seems to have been identified and watched? Unfortunately there is not enough information to say either way. That’s the point I’m trying to make here that there just isn’t enough information to properly assess the Batty Street Lodger story. And it doesn’t help that the Batty Street Lodger was confused with the Gray’s Inn-Road Laundry Customer a fact which amazingly hasn’t been commented on before.

    Several newspapers ran the story of the Gray’s Inn-Road Laundry Customer in early October (the Daily Telegraph, the St. James Gazette, the Star and the Irish Times for example). Here’s the story from the Daily News, Tuesday, 9 October, 1888.

    “THE EAST END MURDERS.
    The Central News states that the Metropolitan Police last night made an arrest which was thought to be of importance. The arrest was made through the instrumentality of the manager of a clothes repairing company in Gray’s Inn-road. Last Wednesday afternoon a man called at the shop between twelve and two o’clock in the afternoon with two garments – an overcoat and a pair of trousers to be cleaned. They were both blood-stained. The coat was especially smeared near one of the pockets, and there were large spots of blood on various parts of the trousers. The manager was away at the time, and his wife took charge of the garments. The man said he would call for them on Friday or Saturday. The wife naturally called her husband’s attention to the blood stains on his return, and he communicated with the metropolitan police, who, having examined the clothes, took them to Scotland-yard. Since then, two detectives have been secreted on the premises awaiting the stranger’s return. Friday and Saturday passed by without his calling, but last evening he stepped into the shop a few minutes before closing time. Detective-sergeant George Godley and a companion seized him without much ceremony, and he was taken straight to Leman-street Police-station. Meanwhile the prisoner accounted for the presence of the blood marks by the assertion that he had cut his hand. It is stated, however, that his explanation was not altogether consistent, as in an unguarded moment he spoke of having cut himself last Saturday, and then suddenly recollecting himself stated that he had also cut his hand previously. The prisoner further stated that he had had the garments by him in his lodgings for two or three weeks, but he refused to give his address. A later communication from the Central News says :- The man was liberated after the police had satisfied themselves of his innocence. The apparent inconsistency of his explanation was doubtless due to his embarrassment.”

    The man entered the laundry “last Wednesday afternoon” or on the 3rd of October just after the “double event.” He had with him blood-stained clothes which he gave to a woman to clean. The man was expected back on Friday or Saturday. The clothes were given to Scotland Yard and two detectives were “secreted away” on the premises waiting for the Laundry Customers return. The man returned to the shop on Monday (the 8th October) and was arrested by “Detective-sergeant George Godley and a companion” and taken to Leman Street Police-station. The man was able to give explanation of the blood stains (he was a waiter at the Alexandra Palace in Alexandra Park and had cut his hand on a broken glass), the story was corroborated and he was released. Anyone else see the parallels between this story and the Batty Street Lodger which broke exactly a week later?

    The Laundry Customer’s story explains this article from the Dublin Evening Mail (16 October)
    “The statement circulated this afternoon, and published in several of the London evening papers, to the effect that the supposed Whitechapel murderer had suddenly left his lodgings, leaving a blood stained garment behind him, turns out to have been an exaggeration of an incident, which though it excited some suspicion a week or so ago, proves on inquiry to have been capable of satisfactory explanation”

    And the Central News Agency story
    “The story is founded on some matters which occurred more than a fortnight ago. It appears that a man, apparently a foreigner, visited the house of a German laundress at 22 Batty Street, and left four shirts tied in a bundle to be washed. The bundle was not opened at the time, but when the shirts were afterwards taken out, one was found to be considerably blood-stained. The woman communicated with the police, who placed the house under observation, the detectives at the same time being lodged there to arrest the man should he return. This he did last Saturday, and he was taken to Leman Street Police Station, where he was questioned, and within an hour or two released, his statements being proved correct.”

    Obviously there was some confusion between the Laundry Customer and the Batty Street Lodger as both events were said to have happened at the same time. How much confusion? Impossible to now say but it’s possible that the Batty Street Lodger was never found and interrogated and thus never gave a good account of himself.

    Wolf.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    aspallek4th May 2006, 11:44 PM
    Hi GH --

    Some thoughts in reply:

    1. It would seem unlikely to me that the killer would be so foolhardy as to give possibly incriminating evidence (even if circumstantial) to his landlady. We know that people were on the lookout for someone with bloodstained clothing and at least one person was nearly mobbed for having stains on his clothing that were mistaken for blood.

    2. I appreciate that American would indeed be a "foreigner" in London. But to me the word "foreigner" is purposefully general. I think it unlikely to be used to describe an American but is more likely to have been used to describe a non-English speaker. Once an American opens his mouth in London he immediately reveals himself as American (rather than the more general "foreign"). But if he spoke some other language his nationality would be unknown or at least more difficult to know.

    3. I agree that it is likely the lodger spoke to his landlady in German (which I think just might be a generalization for Yiddish). Do you suppose the police sent a German-speaking officer to interview her?

    4. I know you didn't mention his name, but was Tumblety known to have spoken German? He finally settled in St. Louis at the turn of the century -- which at that time was a very German community.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter5th May 2006, 06:55 AM
    Many thanks to Wolf and Andy for taking the time and care to make valid responses on this thread. As I stated, this is a story that has 'bugged' me for a long time. As Wolf notes, it is very convoluted and difficult to get to the bottom of. However, again as I stated, the press do seem to have gone to the locality and ascertained the basic facts of the German woman's story, and the fact that it was a lodger who had fled and not merely someone who had left dirty washing with the woman.

    It seems apparent from the press reports that the police did not want publicity for the story. The subsequent story about the man leaving the shirt to be washed and the fact that he was detained and cleared was published by me in my original account of the incident. But it really does leave the impression that the police were issuing a story to kill off the one already in circulation. Indeed, it appears to have worked as the story gradually disappeared from the papers.

    I have to correct Wolf on one point, the 9 October story of a customer leaving an overcoat and pair of trousers to be cleaned at a 'clothes cleaning establishment,' and his detention and release, did, in fact, appear with the lodger story when I first told it and I have commented on it. I pointed out the parallels to be drawn with the stories, but this early story is much closer to the story issued to kill off the Batty Street story, than it is to the actual Batty Street lodger account. The version I used appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 9 October and was stated to have occurred on Wednesday 3 October. But 22 Batty Street was not Holborn. This was story was too different to be a basis for the Batty Street story which was told to the press by neighbours, as well as confirmed by the woman. I did, however, suggest that it might have formed the basis for the story that was used to counter the Batty Street story after it appeared on 16 October. The fact that the press claimed to have visited Batty Street, to have spoken with the neighbours, and ascertained the story does indicate that the incident did actually happen.

    I think that the later stories of the lodger who 'lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused' is a garbled version of the German landlady story that the press had confused. It cannot be doubted that Wolf is correct that there is just not enough information to properly assess the story and it is another example of how the routine police inquiry reports, notebooks and occurrence books could hold the answer to the mysterious story.

    As we draw in further reports of this undoubtedly syndicated story, the ones from further afield become more garbled and confused. Therefore the best assessment is to be made from the earlier and, presumably, more accurated stories gleaned by the press who actually attended the scene.

    Andy comments that the killer would be foolhardy to leave incriminating evidence. This is true, but the annals of murder are littered with examples of killers that are that foolhardy. And, as I have pointed out, in 1888 a bloodstained shirt was not the conclusive evidence that it would be today. If an innocent explanation for the blood could be provided, such as the person had dealt with an injured animal, had a severe nosebleed, etc. etc., the story could not be disproved by analysis of the blood and would have to be accepted if there was no proof to the contrary. I take the point regarding Americans, but they were still foreigners despite the fact they spoke English. Andy, of course, here raised the name of Tumblety in this context, querying whether he spoke German. It is not known for certain, but he did travel on the Continent, both to France and Germany. Although the Batty Street story was originally used to support the Tumblety theory, obviously there is no conclusive evidence that it was him and the suggestion is not being argued here, but rather the pros and cons of the lodger story itself.

    It is all too easy to write press reports off, and in some cases quite rightly so. But here there is a story that seems to amount to something more. May I thank the gentlemen above for their valid and valued contribution. But there is more to follow.

  • #2
    aspallek5th May 2006, 07:50 AM
    GH --

    Once again I'm going to play devil's advocate. I appreciated your theory when you first told it to me and and I don't disagree with it now. However...

    Yes, there have been accounts of killers acting so foolishly as to incriminate themselves. You, as a former police office would know that much better than I. But we have to remember one thing. The fact that we know about these foolhardy criminals -- that they got themselves caught -- puts them in a different class from Jack the Ripper. What separates JtR from most other killers known to history is that he was clever enough not to get caught. Taking it as a "given" that he was so clever, is it likely that he really would have been so foolish? I would also say that giving a blood-stained shirt to his landlady on the night on which a gruesome murder had just taken place nearby would indeed be quite incriminating, even if only circumstantially so. It also begs the question what he did with his bloodstained clothes after the earlier murders. How did he avoid suspicion then?

    I still question the description of "foreign" as applying to an American in London. If I observed a man speaking with a British accent here in St. Louis, I would never refer to him merely as "that foreign man." He would be "that Englishman" because I know precisely where he is from. On the other hand, if I observed someone speaking Bosnian or some other language unfamiliar to me, I might well resort to referring to him merely as "that foreign man." But, yes, this is hazardous speculation.

    I will try to see if I can find out anything about whether Tumblety may have been active in the German community here in St. Louis.

    Fun, this.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter5th May 2006, 07:52 AM
    I noted early in this thread the caveats to be observed regarding press reports and the fact that some sort of corroboration for a story may help to establish its veracity, or otherwise. When the story of the Batty Street lodger was used in 1995 to support the idea that this particular lodger might be an American, ergo possibly Tumblety, it was the most tenuous of links and hardly a solid basis for the theory. But there were ingredients present that vaguely suggested Tumblety. They may be listed as follows -

    1. Tumblety was well known for taking lodgings (but so are many people).

    2. He was also well known for suddenly disappearing from his lodgings, and another example of him leaving apparel at his lodgings when fleeing exisits.

    3. He was a foreigner (albeit an English speaking American), and there was a vague indicator that the fleeing Batty Street lodger might be an American, one suspect arrested at this time was an American.

    If elements of the Batty Street story were true then there were strong indicators that the lodger, whoever he might have been, might possibly be the murderer. They were -

    1. The lodger returned during the early hours on the night of the 'double event,' his movements waking his landlady.

    2. The lodger left the following morning, before news of the murders was published, leaving behind a shirt with bloodstained cuffs.

    3. The police were informed and kept some sort of watch but the lodger never returned.

    Despite the complexity of the story as reported, the basic idea of someone returning to their lodgings just after the double murder and with bloodstained cuffs is pretty damning, but it was probably safer to leave the bloodstained shirt rather than carry it onto the streets where he risked being stopped with it in his possession, after all the hue and cry had been raised by morning. He certainly would have some explaining to do.

    But when all is said and done, those who do not agree with the above possibilities are still able to write the whole thing off as 'just another press story.'

    More to follow...

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    aspallek5th May 2006, 08:04 AM
    3. He was a foreigner (albeit an English speaking American), and there was a vague indicator that the fleeing Batty Street lodger might be an American, one suspect arrested at this time was an American.

    There is, of course, another explanation that I just realized I had overlooked. If the Lodger did indeed habitually speak German to his landlady and the neighbors observed this, they might well have assumed the Lodger to be a native German and not have known that he was an American.


    Despite the complexity of the story as reported, the basic idea of someone returning to their lodgings just after the double murder and with bloodstained cuffs is pretty damning, but it was probably safer to leave the bloodstained shirt rather than carry it onto the streets where he risked being stopped with it in his possession, after all the hue and cry had been raised by morning. He certainly would have some explaining to do.

    True. And he could well have been long gone by the time the landlady noticed the blood.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter5th May 2006, 08:19 AM
    Andy your points are valid, and welcome. All theories and ideas should be strongly challenged and the contra points evaluated and discussed. So your devil's advocacy is appreciated. But, I am not trying to prove anything here, I am trying to establish the true status of the whole Batty Street lodger story and its validity or otherwise. Without the participation of informed commentators such as Wolf and yourself this would not be possible.

    Our posts crossed so I shall address your points here. There are also killers who have foolishly left behind incriminating clues and who have not been subsequently caught. In my last post I addressed the point of him leaving behind the shirt. With the hue and cry over the murders raised and the possibility of being stopped and searched by the police, it would be extremely risky to carry around the bloodstained evidence before being able to dispose of it. The safer option was probably to leave the bloodstained shirt behind at the abandoned lodgings to where he did not intend to return. If he had been registered there under a false name he would feel even safer in doing that.

    An American would be much more likely to be referred to as a foreigner in 1888 than now - even though you are still foreigners! But a valid point nonetheless, although there are so many imponderables and unknowns involved that speculation remains just that. Bear in mind also that some of the neighbours in Batty Street were probably also foreigners, like the German landlady, and they may well have referred to someone with an American accent as foreign - he was obviously not a native of the area, like themselves.

    In any debate such as this all we can do is present what is known and then apply our own interpretations and arguments for others to consider and decide what their own ideas are. Certainly I'm not setting out to prove anything here and insist on nothing other than the full picture being drawn and an open mind being maintained.

    More to follow...

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter5th May 2006, 09:24 AM
    Wolf detailed the press story of 9 October about the laundry customer who left a bloodstained overcoat and pair of trousers at a clothes repairing shop in Gray's Inn Road, and who was subsequently detained, cleared and released. He suggested that this might be the basis for the Batty Street story a week later. But Batty Street is not Gray's Inn Road, which is in a totally different part of London. And it seems certain that Batty Street was certainly the location for the lodger story. The confusion seems to have been caused by the release of a story by the Central News Agency claiming that the man had been arrested and cleared and was merely a person who had left washing there and was not a lodger. My contention is that the refutation story was based on the laundry story and that the Batty Street lodger was a totally different incident that the police wanted kept quiet.

    The fact that the Batty Street story was definitely based at that location is proved not only by the fact that the press visited that location, but that the address was positively identified as No. 22 Batty Street. This is confirmed by the Illustrated Police News of 27 October 1888 that not only gave the address of 22 Batty Street, but also identified the occupant as 'Mrs Kuer The German Laundress' accompanied by an illustration of a man leaving a bloodstained shirt with her. Obviously the further detail of the woman's name had been added, although the illustration was of the 'refutation' story of a man leaving a shirt to be washed.

    There seems to be no doubt that the incident actually occurred at the home of Mrs Kuer at 22 Batty Street - an address given at the time and which any pressman could check out. What remains under question are the two following options -

    1) The original story related to an actual lodger who had fled after the double murder leaving behind a bloodstained shirt - which story was apparently confirmed by the press who had actually interviewed the woman and her neighbours.

    2) The 'refutation' story later issued to dismiss the lodger story and claim that it was a man who had left a bloodstained shirt (with three others) for washing and he had been seen and cleared.

    In my humble opinion the former seems to ring true, whilst the facts surrounding the latter seem to point to a police dismissal of a story they did not want published. But, as with so many Ripper stories - 'you pays your money and makes your choice.'

    More to follow...

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    harry5th May 2006, 10:07 AM
    The point I would like to make,is,with the lodger having been a resident of some duration,it is hardly likely the landlady would not have had some documentation containing his name.Some register,or even a rent book.I feel it a rare occurance,even for those days ,that a person might be able to live among other's for a period of time,and not be known by some address.Yet for all the press and police activity,we are left with a person seemingly unknown by name,to his landlady,fellow lodgers and neighbours.

    Tumblety on the other hand seems to be a person who became well known and aquainted to those he came in contact with,in a very short time.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grey Hunter5th May 2006, 10:27 AM
    In 1995 I had to accept that the Batty Street lodger story was tenuous at best, and that it could be relatively easily countered as being just another press suspect story without corroboration.

    The distinguished playwright, author, and journalist George R. Sims had featured prominently in the 1995 work, and he was known to be very interested in Jack the Ripper, making regular commentary at the time, and in subsequent years. One of his later contributions was a very long piece, 'Who Was Jack the Ripper?' that appeared in Lloyd's Weekly News of 22 September 1907. This illustrated article, which was discovered as a result of letters of Sims that I obtained in 1993, was very detailed and examined the theories on the identity of the Ripper, particulary 'the Polish Jew' [Kosminski], the 'Russian doctor' [Ostrog], and 'the doctor, who had been an inmate in a lunatic asylum and who drowned in the Thames' [Druitt]. He also mentioned the theory of 'a young American medical student' that was based on Wynne Baxter's story of the American attempting to purchase female organs. Sims left no doubt that his preferred suspect was the man drowned in the Thames. This article showed the continuing interest in the Ripper crimes and resulted in Sims being contacted by interested readers of his piece.

    In 1996 I purchased a bound scrap-book of press cuttings on famous murders and mysteries that had been compiled by William Hodge & Co., Edinburgh, publishers of the famous Notable British Trials series. Imagine my amazement when I opened this volume and found, on the first page, a cutting from the Yarmouth Independent of 25 February 1911. It was headed 'ADVENTURES OF A JOURNALIST' by George R. Sims and was part VIII 'ON THE TRACK.' He gave the sub-title as "The Unsolved Mysteries of Crime" and the first case related was as follows -

    "JACK THE RIPPER.
    The crimes of Jack the Ripper are still debated and from time to time the discussion as to his identity is revived in the Press.
    Two adventures befel me as a journalist in this case. For many nights during the hue and cry I was in the area to which the crimes were confined. It was therefore with mixed feelings that I discovered that my portrait had been taken to Dr. Forbes Winslow, who was writing a good deal on the case at the time, and given to him with the request that he would send it to the police as there was no doubt I was the guilty man.
    As a matter of fact the features of the man who is now believed by the authorities to have been Jack, did bear a certain resemblance to mine.
    Three years ago, when the discussion as to Jack's identity cropped up again in the Press, I wrote on the subject. Soon afterwards a lady called upon me late one night. She came to tell me that the Whitechapel fiend had lodged in her house. On the night of the double murder he came in at two in the morning. The next day her husband, going into the lodger's room after he had left it, saw a black bag, and on opening it discovered a long knife, and two bloodstained cuffs. The lodger was a medical man, an American. The next day he paid his rent, took his luggage and left. Then the police were communicated with but nothing more was heard of the American doctor with the suspicious black bag.
    "But," said my lady visitor, "I have seen him again this week. He is now in practice in the North West of London."
    She gave his name and address and the names of two people who were prepared to come forward and identify him as the lodger with the black bag, the knife, and the incriminating cuffs. The next day I took the information, for what it might be worth, to the proper quarters. But the doctor was not disturbed in his practice. There was ample proof that the real author of the horrors had committed suicide in the last stage of his manical frenzy."

    The huge relevance of this story is the fact that it came to light nearly twenty years after the murders and is totally unconnected with the 1888 press reports of the Batty Street lodger to which it must refer - there are too many points of similarity. It must be seen as corrobration of the October 1888 lodger story. The woman had nothing to gain and actually supplied details of her then current suspect. It is arguable that she, and the other two, would still be able to recognise a lodger she had taken in so many years before. The German woman, if it was her, would certainly be speaking good English after so many years, when she saw Sims, and the details he obtained were given by the actual landlady herself. The idea of bloodstained cuffs rings true, in those day cuffs, like collars, were often detachable for washing. As in the 1888 story, the events described relate to the night of the 'double event' and the lodger coming it at 2.00 a.m. would tie in as a 15 minute walk from Mitre Square, even if deviating via back streets, would be about right.

    Anyway, all this is food for thought, and I am aware that we have no other corroborative evidence other than the press reports. But they, I feel, are compelling and all this cannot be dismissed out of hand. The answer may never be known, but there must be a possibility that some further documents from Sims' collection may turn up some day and cast further light on his late night visitor back in 1907/8.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    bobhinton5th May 2006, 10:28 AM
    I'm speaking entirely from memory here but wasn't it later established ( a story appearing in the press) that the stains on the shirts weren't blood but paint?

    I can't recall where I read that I'll have to have a dig when I have a silly five minutes

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JMenges5th May 2006, 01:27 PM
    Grey Hunter
    I'd be interested in your opinion of how the Batty Street Lodger accounts cross with the one told by Winslow about the Pinchin Torso and the silent boots? A portion of Winslow's tale I reprint below.

    "He said that in April 1888 a gentlemanly-looking man called in answer to an advertisement. He engaged a large bed-sitting-room in his house, and said that he was over on business, and might stay a few months or perhaps a year. Before he came there he told them that he had occupied rooms in the neighbourhood of St Paul's Cathedral.

    The proprietor and his wife noticed that whenever he went out of doors he wore a different suit of clothes from that which he wore the day before, and would often change them three or four times a day. He had eight or nine suits of clothes and the same number of hats. He kept very late hours, and whenever he returned home his entry was quite noiseless. In his room were three pairs of rubbers coming high over do ankles, one pair of which he always used when going out at night.

    On 7th August, the date of the second murder, the lodging-house keeper was sitting up late with his sister, waiting for his wife to return from the country. She was expected home about 4 a.m., and the two sat up till then. A little before four o'clock the lodger came in, looking as though he had been having rather a rough time. When questioned he said that his watch had been stolen in Bishopsgate, and gave the name of a police station where he had lodged a complaint.

    On investigation this proved to be false, as no complaint had been lodged with the police. The next morning, when the maid went to do his room, she called the attention of the proprietress to a large bloodstain on the bed. His shirt was found hanging up in his room with the cuffs recently washed, he having washed them himself. A few days later he left, saying that he was going to Canada, but he evidently did not go, because he was seen getting into a horse car in London in September 1888."

    Do you believe this is a completely garbled version of the Batty St. Lodger? The lodger "going to Canada", is of course an interesting bit of added detail.

    The full text is here
    http://casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.winslow.html

    Thanks for all your contributions,

    JM

    Comment


    • #3
      johnr5th May 2006, 01:36 PM
      Thank You Grey hunter,
      For commencing this very interesting and surprisingly overlooked subject for a thread.
      Drawing from my memory of the JTR police investigations in general, I think it was at some given point, the police began to seek answers as to just how the Ripper was able to make his escape so speedily without being observed by the heavy police presence in the area.
      Gradually, attention focussed on the possibility the murderer having a convenient bolt-hole close-by. And thus door-to-door inquiries were begun for those living alone in premises, particularly if their behaviour had aroused the suspicions of their landlords/ladies or neighbours.
      (Doubtless, there are records of just which of these press stories of a mysterious East End Lodger inspired Mrs Hillaire Belloc Lowndes to pen her legendary story).
      I agree with Grey Hunter, there certainly appears to have been two lodger stories at the time of the Double Event. And I am sensationally tempted to see a connection between bloodstained coat pockets and the Mitre Square murder.Where an anatomical portion of the deceased was allegedly carried away.(In the coatpocket of the mysterious Lodger?).
      But the reason I post is to point to one of those amazing, and confusing coincidences with which the JTR cases abound:
      In Messrs Stewart P. Evans' and Keith Skinner's book The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Source Book at pages 533/4, is a report by Inspector Edmund Reid
      concerning human remains of an Unknown Woman in a Pinchin Street Railway Arch on 10 September 1889.
      (In this Reid requested " the Inspector of dust carts for the parish of St George to ask his men and direct them to report to him if any blood stained clothes were taken from any houses, and let the police know at once ."
      "This was done and information was received from [ ], stating that some had been found in Batty Street which is being inquired into".
      "Inquiries are still being made in the neighbourhood of Pinchin Street with a view to gain any information in the matter.
      Edmund Reid L. Inspector".
      "Submitted. Respecting the clothing found in Batty St. bearing blood stains. I have made inquiry, and although not yet quite completed I am satisfied that they are the result of a confinement. Special report will follow. Henry Moore,Inspr.
      T.Arnold Supd."
      So, one has to ask whether extraordinary incidents such as these succeeded in muddying the waters of journalistic recollection some years later...
      JOHN RUFFELS.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      JMenges5th May 2006, 02:01 PM
      John,

      Thanks for that last bit, as it seems that, according to Winslow's story, the man seen washing blood off his hands after the Pinchin St. Torso murder matched the description of "that given by a lodging-house keeper with whom he lived a year before". And that lodging-house keeper was the one who showed Winslow the pair of boots (see my post above). This Batty Street story does become very muddy.

      JM

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Grey Hunter5th May 2006, 03:22 PM
      To briefly comment on some of the preceding posts, there was a story of a suspect with 'bloodstained clothing' who was pursued by a mob, I believe a pub was involved, and was taken into custody for his own safety and the 'bloodstains' proved to be paint. However, this did not relate to the Batty Street lodger story, and no such resolution was ever suggested in this case.

      Yes, I see parallels between the Forbes Winslow story in 1889 and the 1888 Batty Street story. This is well known and, I have always thought, there is a possibility that Winslow may have emebellished his own stories by borrowing from earlier press reports.

      The really interesting aspect of the landlady story is its re-emergence in 1911 in the Sims article. Because that puts an entirely different light on it, almost certainly indicating that in 1888 the police had asked her not to give details of her lodger. This, as I suggested, led to the story being released of someone leaving clothing to be washed at the address who was later detained and cleared.

      I have hundreds of contemporary references to the murders, and these include many original newspapers as well as vast quantities of photocopies. It's amazing, only today I have located a further reference to the Batty Street story that I didn't know I had. I would suggest that it reinforces the idea that the landlady was told to deny the original story and use the later released 'laundry' story, whereas others will argue that it ends the lodger theory (which in view of the 1911 Sims story I don't believe it can). But in fairness I am reproducing the piece in full. It appeared in The People of Sunday, October 21, 1888 -

      "Might Have Been Important.
      It has now transpired that from the very morning of the Berner-street and Mitre-Square murders the police have had in their possession a shirt saturated with blood. It is said to have been left in a house in Batty-street after the murders. Having regard to the position of this house, its close proximity to the yard in Berner-street, where the crime was committed, and to the many passages and alleys adjacent, there seems to be at least ground for the suspicion entertained by the police... [Here the lodger story is repeated as the earlier report] ... Although, for reasons known to themselves, the police during Saturday, Sunday, and Monday answered negatively all questions as to whether any person had been arrested, or was then in their charge, there is no doubt that a man was taken into custody on suspicion of being the missing lodger from 22, Batty-street, and that he was afterwards set at liberty. The German lodging-house keeper could clear up the point as to the existence of any other lodger supposed to be absent from her house under the suspicious circumstances referred to, but she is not accessible, and it is easy to understand that the police should endeavour to prevent her making any statement.
      The Story of the Blood-stained
      Shirt.
      A reporter has had an interview with the landlady of the house, 22, Batty-street, Whitechapel, which place was alleged to be the resort of the owner of the blood-stained shirt. The lodging-house is kept by a German woman, the wife of a seaman. She denied that the man for whom the police are searching was one of her lodgers, and asserted that he simply had his washing done at the house. He was a ladies' tailor, working for a West-end house, and did not reside in the Leman-street district. She explained the presence of blood on the shirt by saying that it was owing to an accident that occurred to a man (other than the one taken into custody) who was living on the premises, and the police would have known nothing of it, but for her having indiscreetly shown it to a neighbour. The woman denies that the detectives are still in possession of her house."

      Odder and odder. The story gets yet another angle put on it here and it needs careful examination of all these reports to even begin to understand what was going on. I reproduce all the salient material for assessment by those interested.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      apwolf5th May 2006, 09:14 PM
      The Batty-street connection was mentioned in ‘Leather Apron’ published in 1888, and I thought that Sam Hudson made some sense way back then with his thoughts.
      While you are about GH, what think you of the complicated court case involving Forbes-Winslow and his daughter on the 10th November 1888 the very day after the murder of MJK?
      Old Forbes-Winslow was a busy old boy that weekend.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      JMenges6th May 2006, 04:09 AM
      Hi

      Thanks again to GreyHunter for all this confusing information.

      I paste a question I asked on another thread, but a warning, it mentions Tumblety.

      Grey Hunter makes mention of an piece by Sims written in 1911 in which he describes an American doctor-as-lodger. If Sims was aware of the suspect Druitt's drowning, and was told he was a doctor, or knew anything of Druitt's background (being British) in 1907 (in his piece 'Who was Jack the Ripper'), one wonders why it was 2 years after the composition of this Batty Street, and 6 years after the 1907 piece that he questions Littlechild about "Dr.D". One would think that being told in 1913 about the American Dr. Tumblety would have sent bells ringing with Sims and his American doctor suspect of 1911. What did Sims know and when did he know it? (And who told him?)

      JM

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      aspallek6th May 2006, 04:43 AM
      To briefly comment on some of the preceding posts, there was a story of a suspect with 'bloodstained clothing' who was pursued by a mob, I believe a pub was involved, and was taken into custody for his own safety and the 'bloodstains' proved to be paint. However, this did not relate to the Batty Street lodger story, and no such resolution was ever suggested in this case.

      It was I who brought that up. I didn't mean to suggest that the incident had anything to do with the one under discussion here. I was only giving it as an indication of how foolhardy it would be to give bloodstained clothes to one's landlady, in light of what nearly happened to this innocent man.

      On further reflection, I am toning down my objection quite a bit. As you said, the Lodger had to do something with the bloody shirt. The safer option was the one he took: give the shirt to the landlady and get the heck out of there. Much safer than wearing the shirt.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Grey Hunter6th May 2006, 07:28 AM
      AP - that must be in connection with the Mrs. Weldon case that rumbled on. I don't think that Winslow had much to do with it at this stage, but it dogged his career forever. I bit off topic here though.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Grey Hunter6th May 2006, 07:31 AM
      Druitt's name did not appear, as far as we know, until early 1894 and, of course, Littlechild retired the previous year. As Druitt was Macnaghten's suspect based on 'private information', I doubt that Littlechild would have known anything about him.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Grey Hunter6th May 2006, 07:35 AM
      Apropos of friendships, Arthur Griffiths was an old friend of both Anderson and Macnaghten. George R. Sims appears to have been very friendly with Macnaghten.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      johnr6th May 2006, 02:46 PM
      Grey Hunter et al,
      I think part of the difficulty of unravelling the various strands of the Batty Street Lodger story, is that several of the strands seem to crop up in other people's lodger stories;or bloodstained clothing stories.
      For instance,Forbes Winslow sought to clarify an alleged misrepresentation of his lodger story by a journalist, by quoting his alleged informant, Mr E. Calleghan of Gainsborough Square, Victoria Park. (although the incident occurred at Callaghan's previous address, Finsbury Square).See The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Stewart Pevans & Keith Skinner at pages 595/6/7.
      Mr Callaghan decribes his Canadian lodger (Mr G.Wentworth Bell Smith) "resembled a foreigner speaking several languages.."And there are other common factors.
      Both G.R.Sims' and Forbes Winslow's bloodstained clothing stories seemed to post-date the Batty Street story.
      I wonder if it would be useful to obtain Census details of Mrs Kuer of Batty Street? and her neighbours, to learn the nationalities of all of them? After all,
      Germany and Russia had nebulous borders in those days, and there is a possibility they were actually Polish or somesuch.There might have been a language common to Mrs Kuer and her neighbours.
      It is doubtful the reporters would have got much out of Mrs Kuer because of the language barrier.And the police may have been victims of misunderstanding too.
      In a previous post I referred to Mrs " Hilaire" Belloc Lowndes" which is a bit of a laugh.I believe her name was Marie, and according to "The A to Z" overheard the lodger story from her butler and maid who had married and started a boarding house.
      JOHN RUFFELS.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      aspallek6th May 2006, 07:48 PM
      Druitt's name did not appear, as far as we know, until early 1894 and, of course, Littlechild retired the previous year. As Druitt was Macnaghten's suspect based on 'private information', I doubt that Littlechild would have known anything about him.

      Interesting, GH. You believe that Druitt was suspected only by Macnaghten and no one who was actually involved in the investigation? That could be, but in light of the other suspects Sir Melville mentions I have to think he was including Druitt with other police suspects. But, since MM's opinion of Druitt is, as you say, based on "private information" it may be that Druitt was not as widely known a suspect as the others. Littlechild, operating in a different department, may have only known of the primary suspects.

      Littlechild says he knew Griffiths. Griffiths knew Macnaghten. It seems to me likely that Littlechild should knew of Druitt through Griffiths -- who certainly did. But, Littlechild says that Griffiths "probably got his information from Anderson," which may mean that Griffiths didn't mention Druitt to Littlechild. This is puzzling because by the time of the Littlechild letter (1913), Anderson's book had been out for about three years and it is clear that Anderson did not favor a doctor as the suspect -- but Griffiths did! This is all very confusing.

      OK maybe this helps. Here are the favorite suspects of some oh the players:

      1. Macnaghten: a doctor (Druitt)
      2. Griffiths: a doctor (certainly Druitt, following MM)
      3. Anderson: a Polish Jew (Kosminski as identified by Swanson)
      4. Sims (in the context of the Littlechild letter): a doctor ("Dr. D[ruitt]")
      5. Littlechild himself: a doctor (Tumblety)
      6. Abberline: doesn't know but suspects Chapman, rejects the doctor theory.

      What do we know about Littlechild's relationships with these men: He knew Griffiths and (obviously) Sims. He rejects Anderson's claim ("only thought he knew") but believes Griffiths got his information from him.

      Ah, but know let's see what Griffiths wrote about the Polish Jew:

      "This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him-the police-constable in Mitre Court."

      So, Littlechild is presumably saying that Griffiths got his information about the Polish Jew's identification from Anderson (and Griffiths does read like Anderson here). Still, if Littlechild knew Griffiths, he should have known about Druitt.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      apwolf6th May 2006, 08:02 PM
      No GH, I do not refer to Weldon case, but rather to something that I think has not been found before.
      That is on the 10th November 1888 a man knocked on the door of Forbes-Winslow’s house and was allowed into the house by Winslow’s daughter after claiming that he needed urgently to speak to the good doctor as his mother was dying and was under the good doctor’s care. This was a ruse, for the unknown - to us - man then stole two silver spoons when left alone in the house.
      Two silver spoons, no big deal.
      The description of the man included the following:
      ‘Wearing astrachan on his overcoat.’
      A Mr Lewis Grace was arrested with astrachan on his overcoat but released when it was shown that he was a ‘gentleman’.
      Meanwhile another man from Southwark was also arrested with astrachan on his overcoat and identified by Winslow’s daughter as the culprit.
      Highly complicated stuff, perhaps Robert can find the case and post it, but it doesn’t like being looked for.
      I don’t think it off topic at all.
      Right on the money I would say.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      robert6th May 2006, 09:02 PM
      You're in luck, AP - it loaded up!

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      apwolf6th May 2006, 09:42 PM
      Thanks Robert, much appreciated, sounds like a Hutchinson to me.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Wolf Vanderlinden6th May 2006, 09:44 PM
      GH I may have got this wrong but I think that you are suggesting that I was trying to say that there was no Batty Street Lodger and that this story was merely confused with the Laundry Customer. Actually the point I was trying to get across was that there seems to have been two very similar events whose particulars may have been transposed making it difficult to assess the Batty Street story on its own merits. And I echo your thoughts “I did, however, suggest that it might have formed the basis for the story that was used to counter the Batty Street story after it appeared on 16 October. The fact that the press claimed to have visited Batty Street, to have spoken with the neighbours, and ascertained the story does indicate that the incident did actually happen.” This is more or less what I was trying to say.

      The huge problem that Sims’ 1911 article causes with those who believe that Sims’ German lady visitor was in fact the landlady of 22 Batty Street, and that Tumblety was the Lodger, is the fact that the woman states that the American medical man was still alive and practicing in London in 1907/08. Neat trick as Tumblety had died in 1903.

      John R, Martin Friedland, in is excellent book The Trials of Israel Lipski, states “In 1887 Batty Street was predominantly Jewish; by the turn of the century it would be, perhaps, ninety per cent Jewish.” Friedland describes 16 Batty Street in 1887 (it was torn down in 1888) as having fifteen people crammed into it, all Jewish.

      Wolf.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Sam Flynn6th May 2006, 10:35 PM
      No GH, I do not refer to Weldon case, but rather to something that I think has not been found before.
      That is on the 10th November 1888 a man knocked on the door of Forbes-Winslow’s house ...The description of the man included the following:
      ‘Wearing astrachan on his overcoat.’
      AP,

      I found that one a week or so ago and transcribed the newspaper article under "Press Reports". I agree that the "astrakhan" description is intriguing. If anyone has further observations there's a ready-rolled thread here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1302.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      rjpalmer7th May 2006, 12:49 AM
      John, while I agree with Wolf Vanderlinden that Friedland's book is important, a look at the 1891 UK Census shows that the street was actually predominantly British, though there were some Jewish families.

      Batty Street can be found in the section dealing with London, St. George-in-the-East, St Mary, ED 17.

      At No. 26 Batty is William Gostley and his family, a carman, family members born in Middlesex & Clerkenwell, as well as another family--that of James Dilloway, born Kent.

      Next door at No. 24 is the “Red Lion” pub, where we find William May, 47, his wife Elizabeth, and a servant named Julia Paddon. Born in Spitalfields, Kent, and Sussex respectively.

      At No. 22 itself is John Aston, aged 41, a gunmaker born Staffordshire, and his three children. His lodger is James Roberts, also a gunmaker, also born Staffordshire. It was a very transient district, and it would seem that our landlady had moved on in the three years after 1888.

      We do, however, find some stablility at No. 17 Batty. There iis Emily Warwick, the woman who had seen the strange customer in the Red Lion on the night of the “double event” She is with her husband and children. They are also all British, but there is a couple living in the same house, Franz and Margearet Brand, who are German.

      Next door at No. 19 are more British Warwicks, plus their English daughter, Lucy Clark, and two other families, those of George Grimes, born Poplar, and Eliza Leonard, born Belfast, Ireland.

      In No. 20 Batty is Samuel Schensul and his wife, who are Russians. All their children were born in Middlesex. There are what appears to be Jewish families at No. 18 & No. 16. A couple of years ago I put some effort into tracing Mrs. Kuer with inconclusive results.

      Whether it is a "huge" problem that Sim's informant believed she saw the doctor again in 1907 would depend on how much faith one would have on her and her friend's ability to recognize the man 19 years later. It could be they saw him; it could be that they were mistaken. At this late date, we have no way of knowing. More salient, from my angle, is that she identifies her strange lodger as an American medical man. Considering the fact that the police were still testing Ripper theories in the late 1890s, it does seem a bit odd to me that Sims couldn't apparently find a policeman interested enough to check the man out.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      johnr7th May 2006, 01:55 AM
      Thanks very much for looking at the Census details RJ, or rather sharing your hard-won researches.
      I think GH has a good subject here, and I agree he does have a point about the Batty Street incident causing JTR to lay off murdering during October- if he was the Batty Street lodger.
      One thing I do find strange though, the land-lady was up and about at 2.a.m. and Berner Street was virtually over the back fence, yet she does not seem to have been aroused by throngs of panicking citizens rushing to ogle at the murder site.There is no mention of neighbourhood hullabaloo or dogs barking.
      Her chummy and garalous neighbours seem not to have heard of the murder by the famous East End "street telegraph".Hmmm.
      Like you, RJ, I too have been mystified that the Batty Street landlady after her nineteen year language lessons, does not seemed to have passed on to ace reporter Sims the names of police or neighbours or other reporters who could have taken this staggering and exciting scoop further. After all, her account is fairly close to the press story of October 1888.
      The same thing struck me regarding G.R.Sims' persistent raising of the drowned Ripper theory: he never seems to have been excited enough to actually leave his Crime Museum and go out and about searching for further clues which promised to present him with the Scoop of the Century!
      I also have difficulty with the press describing an American as a foreigner. They surely would have just said "American".
      JOHN RUFFELS.

      Comment


      • #4
        Grey Hunter7th May 2006, 07:03 AM
        I think that RJ has covered points I would respond to very well. Regarding the later Sims landlady story, my argument was that the woman and the other two she mentioned, believed the doctor she had seen currently in practice in London was her 1888 lodger but were mistaken, perhaps persuaded by the fact he was an American and may have had similar physical features. This, I thnk, would account for the fact that the doctor was not disturbed by the police when Sims went to them with the information. For surely the local police would know all about a doctor in practice in their area and know, from his history that he could not have been in Whitechapel in 1888 - hence they would not bother him but dismiss the woman's story as a mistake.

        May I say, again, here that I am not making an argument for a particular suspect, but I am trying to make sense of the reports that were published and are a matter of record.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grey Hunter7th May 2006, 07:31 AM
        To respond to Andy's post I would make the following points. No, I do not think that Druitt was suspected 'only by Macnaghten and no one who was actually involved in the investigation.' And I don't think that I actually said that. Clearly Druitt was a suspect (for whatever reason and with no hard evidence, as with all the named suspects). The point I was making is that it is pretty certain that Druitt was not suspected in 1888/89 and there is no mention of his name until 1894 (in Macnaghten's report). When his name emerged as a suspect we simply don't know, but Littlechild had retired in 1893 and probably never heard the name.

        Littlechild, however, must have heard of the drowned doctor in the Thames suspect as he was well publicised by Griffiths in 1898 and often mentioned by Sims - but without the name Druitt being stated.

        There can be no doubt that Griffiths got information from both Anderson and Macnaghten, and this is fairly obvious when you read his book. Macnaghten's 1894 report naming Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog was on file at New Scotland Yard and it is difficult to think that Anderson, his immediate superior, would not have known about it and, one would assume, have approved it, in its final form, as a refutation of the stories that appeared in The Sun.

        Now in being given the basic information in this report, which Griffiths undoubtedly was, it seems likely that Griffiths would have obtained Anderson's permission to use the information, as long as he omitted the names, before publishing it for public consumption in his 1898 book. Anderson was head of the C.I.D. and a public disclosure of this sort would need his sanction rather than Macnaghten's. In describing the suspects Griffiths personal preference was clearly for the 'drowned doctor' and not the Polish Jew. Griffiths had obviously discussed the suspects with both Anderson and Macnaghten and, apparently, was swayed by Macnaghten's opinion rather than Anderson's.

        Although Littlechild knew Griffiths we do not know if he had contact with him, or a continued friendship, after he retired in 1893. Also it is obvious that even if Griffiths did know the names of the three suspects, as well as their other details, he was not disclosing the names.

        I hope that answers your query Andy.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grey Hunter7th May 2006, 07:35 AM
        AP - a brief response here, yes I do have the information on Emma Winslow and it is interesting. What I was saying is that it is off topic on this particular thread which is about the Batty Street lodger and Sims' story of 1911. Perhaps a separate thread on your Forbes Winslow story should be started.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grey Hunter7th May 2006, 07:50 AM
        Wolf, thanks for the clarification of your point - I have to agree all these stories do become very confusing and confused. The idea of this thread was to analyse it all and see what we came up with - and present the pro and contra arguments.

        I might be wrong, but I think that you are under the impression that I am trying to prove certain points, especially that Tumblety was the Batty Street Lodger, which I am not. I appreciate that such a thing cannot be proved. What I am doing is presenting various reports that are published and on record and trying to make sense of them. Obviously they have been used to bolster the Tumblety argument, how can they not be when an American doctor is mentioned, but they certainly don't prove that it was Tumblety and there were probably other American doctors around anyway. But it is with sensible debate that we can, perhaps, present a fuller argument and examine all the possibilities, both for and against certain conclusions.

        It is for this very reason that it is great to have you taking part giving informed consideration to the debate and other interpretations and arguments that should be presented and assessed. I think that with any debate of this nature people just have to read all the reports, assess all the arguments and draw their own conclusions based on that. That those conclusions will not all be the same and that often opposing contentions are both valid cannot be gainsaid. But, until now, I don't think that the Batty Street lodger story has ever been properly addressed.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Grey Hunter7th May 2006, 08:47 AM
        AP - I have responded to your query on the Forbes Winslow thread.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        johnr7th May 2006, 11:17 AM
        Excuse my butting in here GH,
        I just need to answer a couple of posts which I rudely ignored above.
        Firstly though, I would love to see a print-out of your newspaper and other JTR-related holdings, you seem to be able to produce some amazing and previously unsighted articles. Please keep them coming. Caveats notwithstanding.

        J Menges:Thanks for pointing out that the Batty Street reference I introduced was the same lodger Forbes Winslow described regarding Pinchin Street.

        Wolf: Thank you for the quote and reference to Martin Friedland's book on Lipski.The quote about Batty Street seems to conflict with the 1891 Census details (unless a rapid exodus occurred prior thereto).

        RJ Palmer:Thanks very much for looking the 1891 Census up. Very interesting and germane.
        You say you have been hunting for details of the German landlady Mrs Tuer from number 22 Batty Street.Might I suggest something?
        Despite Mrs Tuer speaking German (Yiddish?) I think there is a possibility she might have hailed from that blurred region I spoke of, half German/half Russian.It occurs to me if Mrs Tuer was Jewish, on another thread concerning Kosminski's genealogy, some knowledgeable person told us in the old days European Jews had no surname, but later assumed the name of the major town where they lived. Kozmin being an example.
        Another European JTR suspect Pedachenko, is alleged to have been born in the Russian town of "TVER". I wonder if the 1891 Census would show up any families with that name rather than TUER?
        JOHN RUFFELS.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Stephen Thomas7th May 2006, 01:03 PM
        Here's a recent photo of the remaining old houses on Batty Street looking north to Commercial Road. On the left is No.20 then two similar houses (18 and 16) that appear on a Victorian photo and then No.14 which is a large apartment block built in 1888 on the site of Lipski's house which had originally been 16 Batty Street.

        1883

        The 1894 Ordnance Survey map shows these buildings as they are today but obviously the numbering was slightly different then. If the Red Lion pub still existed it would be next door to the current No.20. As the address of the pub was 24 Batty Street (thanks RJ) then the house shown here would be the very one being discussed i.e. 22 Batty Street though of course it may well have been completely rebuilt.

        Many thanks GH for this fascinating thread.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn7th May 2006, 07:02 PM
        Stephen,
        Thanks for the photograph.Another genuinely old corner of the East End.I believe Stephen R posted an estate agents link when one of these old houses was being sold 2 or 3 years ago.They were asking some £650,000 even back then!
        Ideal houses to let to a " Lodger" too - so many rooms per house!
        Natalie

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        apwolf7th May 2006, 09:25 PM
        Of course the murderer, Lipski, lived at No. 16 Batty Street in 1887, and that is where the murder was committed.
        Mrs. Lipski, a German, was the ‘landlady of the house’, she also happened to be ‘stout, middle aged and German’, and it is worth noting that from 1887 right through to 1888 the house was besieged by angry mobs - directed by the husband of the victim - and violent scenes were common on a nightly basis.
        From number 16 to number 22 Batty Street is but a short hop, and I believe we look at a situation here which is a press and police melding of two entirely different cases, unless of course that is Mrs. Lipski was using the Whitechapel Murders as a reason to get the police interested in her own safety issues again, for she was being beaten up on a nightly basis, so a cry of ‘wolf’ might have helped.
        This is good fun.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        robert9th May 2006, 07:23 PM
        AP sends these from the Sam Hudson book.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        tom_wescott10th May 2006, 06:57 AM
        Hello all,

        This is a very interesting thread and I hope more is added to it. I'll be honest in saying that I didn't really appreciate the Batty Street suspect for a long time. Just didn't ring true to me. Still doesn't, per se, but when I realized how truly close 22 Batty Street was to Dutfield's Yard I became intrigued. Part of the article I'm now writing is a literary walking tour (so to speak) of Berner Street. For those who don't already know, I thought I might expound on what RJ included in his previous post. Here's how Batty Street relates to Berner Street:

        Directly across the street from Dutfield's Yard was the Board School. If you were walking north alongside the board school with Dutfield's Yard on the other side of the street to your left, you'd about 5 doors past the yard and would reach the end of board school. You'd now be standing at an arched entryway greatly resembling that of Millers Court, only the name 'Hampshire Court' would be etched in stone above the arch. Stepping through the archway you'd find yourself walking along a narrow pathway, a row of small cottages to your left. This pathway would run the width of the board school. Within seconds you would exit out onto Batty Street, with the Red Lion pub (#24) immediately to your right and the BS Lodger's pad (#22) to your left. From Dutfield's Yard, you could run to this address in under a minute. Now, had our Lodger taken this route from his home to the yard at approximately 12:50a.m., upon exiting Hampshire Court he would find himself eye to eye with Charles Letchford's sister who'd be standing outside her door at #30 Berner Street, directly across the road from Hampshire Court. Only three doors south of her, the unsinkable Fanny Mortimer would be standing at her door peering him down as well. If Stride's killer did take this route into Berner Street, he likely did so in the 5 minutes between when Mrs. Mortimer locked her door and poor ol' Leon Goldstein came walking down the road. However, to my mind, it seems most likely the killer turned right upon leaving Dutfield's Yard and fled the way of Fairclough Street.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Stephen Thomas10th May 2006, 09:12 AM
        Hi Tom

        Your project on Berner Street sounds very interesting. Good luck with it. You may like to know that the 'ghost' of Hampshire Court still exists as a small alleyway off Henriques/Berner Street which leads to what looks like a childrens play area. From there you can view the backs of the old houses on Batty Street.

        Best Wishes

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        chrisg10th May 2006, 01:52 PM
        Hello Tom

        I agree with Stephen that your Berner Street project sounds most interesting. It sounds as if you are some way along with it. I will be very interested to read the final version. Good luck to you with it, Tom.

        Chris

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        tom_wescott10th May 2006, 06:30 PM
        Chris & Stephen,

        Thank you for the positive comments, guys. I'm enjoying learning all about Berner Street and the people involved in or peripheral to the investigation of the murder. Whether it will amount to anything of value, who knows, but it's fun.

        Stephen,

        Thanks for that interesting info on the 'ghost' of Hampshire Court. By any chance do you have recent photos of it?

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn10th May 2006, 07:01 PM
        I was quite taken with your observation about that alley way that used to link Berner Street to Batty Street,Tom.Its the first I ever heard of such a passageway.Interesting.
        The "Lipski" shouting that Shwartz claimed to have heard -it begins to take on other inferences when you consider that number 16 Batty Street was only a minute"s walk from where BS was when he was supposed to have shouted it out to pipeman.It had apparently also made the news too for attracting anti Jewish mobs in the wake of the Lipski murder and hanging. the previous 12 months .
        Sounds like number 16 Batty Street had become something of a haunt or focal point for such anti-Jewish taunts and heckles in the area.
        Is it possible that the IWEA might have attracted some anti Jewish hooligans too-ready to attack a prostitute for appearing to avail herself of Jewish Clients from the club?
        That night certainly seems to have been one where "Jewish Clubs"and "Jewish witnesses" received a lot of prominence one way and another---which if taken alongside the apron being dropped in a Jewish tenement and strange writing appearing on one of the walls about "Juwes" begins to seem more than just coincidence.
        Natalie

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn10th May 2006, 07:14 PM
        The" Arbeter Fraint" [Worker"s Friend] was a highly inflammatory anarchist /socialist Yiddish paper and a rallying call to all the disaffected, relatively newly immigrant ,Eastern European Jews especially those working in the sweat shops.
        It makes me wonder if someone like Tumblety could have been a "double agent" doing a bit of "agent provocateur" stuff outside that club to create trouble for it.....from the description we have of "pipeman" he could have been Tumblety .....

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Stephen Thomas10th May 2006, 07:22 PM
        Hi Tom

        Well it doesn't look like an alley now, just a gap between two buildings , but here are the backs of the Batty Street houses.

        1921

        The painted house on the right there is the current #20 (Victorian #22) and the one on the left the current #18. This next one shows #18 on the right and #16 on the left.

        1922

        And just for jolly, here is the portico of the apartment block #14 Batty Street which stands on the site of the Lipski murder house (formerly #16) and probably of the original #14 an #12 as well.

        1923

        Best Wishes

        p.s. Tom, I'd be more than happy to go down there and take some more photos of the street if you think it may help your project.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn10th May 2006, 08:22 PM
        Hi Stephen,
        That house immediately above with 1888 on the portico will be the original house built in 1888.I have studied brick work and that matches Victorian brick work.The other house are much older [by some hundred years].Georgian design rather than Victorian.
        Great Photos Stephen!
        Natalie

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        apwolf10th May 2006, 08:58 PM
        Natalie,
        Sam Hudson picked up this connection in 1888, but although I posted this about two years ago, it was ignored.
        The ‘Lipski’ case is essential to our understanding of the later Whitechapel Murders, not many realise that Lipski actually attacked his victim prior to poisoning her, stunning her with a blow to the head. Not many are aware that his victim was pregnant at the time of her death; and not many are aware that the crime was considered a ‘sexual’ one at the time.
        Wynne Baxter was the coroner in the case, and I think this steeled him for the Whitechapel Murders, in that he wanted no mistakes made this time.
        Batty Street always had a reputation for sexual excess, as Barnado knew, just take the rape of a young Austrian girl at Nos. 4 by 28 men - aided and abetted by the landlady of the house who was probably ‘stout, middle-aged and German’ - in November of 1885.
        Good thoughts Natalie.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        rjpalmer10th May 2006, 11:33 PM
        Before I'm brutally flogged, I want to point out that I misread my notes; the names I listed a few days back on Batty Street were from the 1881 Census, not the 1891. The Warwicks can be found in both, and Batty over the ten year span looks largely like a pocket of Gentiles in an otherwise Jewish sector. I've been interested in this 'passage' as well, but in the census sheets it is seemingly referred to as (1881) Murden's Row, or (1891) Murden Place.

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn11th May 2006, 10:35 PM
        I have just been to Whitechapel and have taken some photos of numbers 16/18/22 Batty Street which I cant post because my machine [or aol] wont let me.I will try properly tomorrow or Saturday.
        Anyway I was interested in what Tom posted the other day about the link passage between Berner street and Batty Street---I note that AP too posted information on this last year - I am sorry I missed it....anyway the good news is that contrary to what Stephen said above-sorry Stephen I dont mean to be impolite here but actually the passage is thankfully very much there still!However building work is going on and there is a big notice in front of the passage saying "FOOTPATH CLOSED".
        I was also very struck by the proximity of the famous houses of Batty Street viz numbers 16 which is the"LIPSKI" murderers address -and then 18 to 22[? number changes].
        Anyway the Batty Street Lodger"s address is less than a minute"s walk from the murder spot in Berner Street of Elizabeth Stride!This old passage way must have been almost opposite the IWEA.It twists and turns in the middle too ,so the ripper could easily have hid from view but been able to witness it if perhaps Stride was hit by Broad Shoulders before he himself made his attack.
        Batty Street is so tiny and narrow! The above houses are also very close to Fairclough Street just a few metres away-as is the Stride murder spot in what was Berner Street.
        Some little Bangladeshi children were playing in the old passageway----they shouldnt have been with that big sign there but since it is an old" right of way" that they have probably played in for years I suppose they saw fit to take their chance!
        In the ripper"s day those children would most likely have been Jewish or Irish!
        Natalie

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn11th May 2006, 10:59 PM
        I have just noticed that the very first picture posted by Stephen of Batty Street looking towards Commercial Street,on this thread ,shows the passage way under discussion.It is where the black iron gates are-which must have been closed off at various timesof day or night. Now though,due to the commencement of the building work I referred to, there are white gates and the red and white notice saying FOOTPATH CLOSED!
        The photos I have taken show, in part ,the view through to Henriques Street[previously Berner Street] and from Henriques Street through to Batty Street.It is a bit blocked off by the turn in the pathway which slightly mars the view through.
        Natalie

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ben12th May 2006, 01:02 AM
        Sounds as though you've had a productive day, Natalie.

        Just a niggling concern: "the ripper could easily have hid from view but been able to witness it if perhaps Stride was hit by Broad Shoulders before he himself made his attack"

        This would entail a coincidence that belies the term - the notion that Stride was manhandled by a ruffian before being murdered by a different man a few minutes later in almost exactly the same location. Some can readily accept this as an everyday occurance. I can't and won't.

        ...but some fascinating observations nonetheless!

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        tom_wescott12th May 2006, 10:32 PM
        Stephen,

        Thanks a mil for those pics, but can we be sure this modern day footpath is even on the same spot as 1888's Hampshire Court? Could just be a footpath created by the demolition and building of structures over the years.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Natalie Severn12th May 2006, 11:01 PM
        Tom,
        There is an English legal tradition about footpaths.They are usually referred to as "Public Rights of Way" and if they are contested a heritage group of "beaters" usually arrive to "beat the bounds".They need to do it once a year to keep the footpath in public ownership.Its actually illegal to "close off" a footpath that is in constant use like the one between Batty Street and Henriques Street[Berner Street] and itsjust possible the builders are contravening a public "Right of Way".I thought it odd there were those old looking black iron gates up in the photo above since it is featured on the 1894 Ordnance Survey map its almost certain to be an ancient right of way that they have no right to build on.A gate sometimes indicates an ancient custom of being closed from 9 pm until dawn since the middle ages as in Chester City - but there it closes part of a walled town.
        Natalie

        Comment


        • #5
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Stephen Thomas13th May 2006, 09:02 PM
          Hi Tom

          Yes, I'm 100% certain that the passage I described follows the route of Hampshire Court. When you emerge from it you are faced with the back of the house of 'The Lodger' as per the ordnance survey maps.

          Hi Natalie

          When I went down to Batty Street a few months ago it was actually to try to figure the respective ages of the old houses and to try and make sense of the numbering. I was certainly not looking for the old Hampshire Court which I assumed was long gone and went on to Berner/Henriques Street only with the intention of getting photos of the backs of the Batty Street houses. It was only when I got home that I realised that I had accidently traversed what I called earlier the 'ghost' of Hampshire Court. The play area I described was then an enclosed space but from what you say there may be building works going on to make an entrance to this area from Batty Street following the line of the old court. I look forward to seeing your photos.

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Natalie Severn13th May 2006, 09:06 PM
          Thanks Ben,
          I agree it is a fascinating area.It was the focus of so much astonishing activity too!The IWEA and Arbeter freint ,the labyrinthine passage ways and The Batty Street murders of the year before to take but a few reasons.
          I dont agree with you though that a prostitute standing alone soliciting couldnt have been attacked twice in ten minutes by two different attackers.I suspect it was par for the course-still is if we take the rougher,sleazier characters into account who think nothing of assaulting a prostitute on her own.
          Natalie
          ps if you are going on the London Job we could all visit Batty Street maybe?

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Natalie Severn13th May 2006, 09:13 PM
          Hi Stephen,
          I have just seen your post and feel like going back there to look at it again!Talk about obsessive!Thing is I am having a problem with the software and have to return to the factory settings even to be able to email an attachment and its a hell of a job getting my computer to accept images of a certain size....tomorrow I am going to try to reduce the photos in my camera instead!
          Will we see you on the next London Job?
          Natalie

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          tom_wescott14th May 2006, 03:51 AM
          Stephen and Natalie,

          Thank you for your posts re: Hampshire Court. Most helpful! Fascinating to learn it survives to this day.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          robert14th May 2006, 09:09 AM
          In the 1881 census, there seem to have been several "courts" and "places" at that location in Berner St. Hampshire Court is numbered.

          Robert

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          tom_wescott15th May 2006, 03:20 AM
          In the 1881 census, there seem to have been several "courts" and "places" at that location in Berner St. Hampshire Court is numbered.

          Robert

          Say what?

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          robert15th May 2006, 09:04 AM
          Tom, the enumerator's round went :

          …3 Berner St, 1 Berner St
          and then

          1,2,3,4,5,6,Queen Court
          1,2,3, Batty Place
          1,2,3,4, Batty Court
          1,2 Joyd’s Court
          1,2,3, Hampshire Court
          1,2,3,4, Murden’s Place
          3,4, Hampshire Place
          1,3,5,…Batty St

          Robert

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          rclack17th May 2006, 11:12 AM
          Natalie has asked me to post these images for her.

          1984

          1985

          1986

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Natalie Severn17th May 2006, 11:36 AM
          Thanks so much Rob.
          These were taken last week when I noticed the public footpath seen on the 1894 Ordnance Survey map is closed....hopefully only for the duration of the building works.
          1] a view of the passage taken from Batty Street showing
          as much of the height of it as possible.Number 20 Batty Street is pictured as the end house and was undoubtedly there in 1894 since the houses are at least two hundred years old,like the ones in Spitalfields----same brick/similar design with shutters,terraced,narrow but several stories high,off street entrance[not Victorian as a general rule] and not very deep.From these houses can be seen Berner St[Henriques Street].The backs look out towards Berner street/Henriques Stret some twenty yards away and the end house next to the passage would have had a view through to Berner St though probably not as far South as Dutfields Yard as a big School building would probably have blocked it.


          2]A view of the passage from Berner Street/Henriques Street ---which seemed until recently to have led to a children"s play area.


          2]Another view of the passage from Batty Street showing the footpath closed sign.

          Natalie

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          jdpegg17th May 2006, 12:19 PM
          Nats
          that fence looks quite substantial?

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Natalie Severn17th May 2006, 12:27 PM
          Jen,
          Hmmm---er I think the area is quite suceptible to burglaries because directly opposite the footpath closed sign was another big sign saying lock up your cars and houses because there have been a number of burglaries recently!
          Nats

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          jdpegg17th May 2006, 12:37 PM
          fair enough!!

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          mwr7th January 2007, 04:58 PM
          Hello all,

          I found this thread and although it seems to have gone quiet I thought it was really interesting, and hope to revive it. So GreyHunter I was hoping to get your response to a couple of things regarding the Batty Street story and the posts.

          Ive read the reports and the earlier posts and I still feel that the report, as published, can be given credibility, as well as establishing the street address as #22. So one question I have is why isnt this surveillance and possible seizure of potential evidence (stained shirt from Landlady) a matter of the police records of the time? I dont know if it is or it isnt actually, but I know I've never read that.

          I know of the relationship this story has had with a name, an american doctor Francis Tumblety, ..but do we know from any source the actual name given for this lodger as told by the landlady... from any other sources? Or whether the foreigner term referred to the lodger speaking other than English or German, which could only be understood by the landlady I assume.

          Ive learned recently from other discussions about the potential routes to and fro the backyard there, along with Police stations and patrol beats nearby, in your opinion does the questionable location of the killer based on the "risky" routes the killer would have taken the night of the double murder taint any possibility that this was perhaps Jack based there?

          One last note, on the lodger story with the man with 8 suits and hats, wasnt there an alleged Ripper letter that stated "8 suits I tog, many hats I wear"....something like that?

          Best regards,

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

          Comment


          • #6
            Good Evening,

            From the above revived post, Grey Hunter 5th May, 2006 9:24 PM

            "My contention is that the refutation story was based on the laundry story and that the Batty Street lodger was a totally different incident that the police wanted kept quiet.

            The fact that the Batty Street story was definitely based at that location is proved not only by the fact that the press visited that location, but that the address was positively identified as No. 22 Batty Street."

            ________________________

            Why would the police issue such a false cover story? Was it that Batty St conjures up Lipski and you have Schwartz saying that, too, so this is a fire to put out? Or are they just playing their cards close to the vest?

            Roy
            Attached Files
            Sink the Bismark

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
              From the above revived post, Grey Hunter 5th May, 2006 9:24 PM
              Sorry, that should be AM

              Roy
              Sink the Bismark

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi again,

                Please allow me to refine and clarify my observations.

                The Batty St story could have been untrue. There was no bloody clothing from there in possession of the police. And no cover stories were planted. The Gray’s Inn-Road could have simply been a separate story that had no bearing on the murders under investigation. And the later, much changed version of the Batty St. story could have been more like the truth, just laundry.

                Or the Batty St story could be true.

                If a false cover story was planted by the police, the Kings-Ann Road one, and/or the later version , there are two scenarios as to why this this was done:

                (1) The Batty St. story is not true, but the police felt the need to plant a cover story because, after all, this was Batty St. That conjures up the Lipski murder. And their witness from Berner St., Schwartz reported the use of that word at the crime scene. This is most distressing, because it could all be high inflammatory. So they try to squelch it like putting out a fire.

                (2) The Batty St story is true. The police do have bloody clothing in their possession and the account from the woman to go with it. Surveillance is conducted. They try to keep a lid on this important information, playing their cards close to the vest. They plant a false story. And in this secnario, the Lipski factor is not mutually exclusive as a reason to plant a story.

                There is a great deal more, of course, to the entire discussion than just this, but it is one starting point for revisiting it again.

                As always, your help is appreciated.
                Roy
                Sink the Bismark

                Comment


                • #9
                  Roy,

                  I would strongly suggest you check out Gavin Bromley's article "Is There an Echo in Here" in Ripperologist 83 (Sept. 2007). Like all of Gavin's work it is an enlightening and detailed examination of the whole Batty Street lodger story.
                  Back issues of the magazine are available by writing to: contact@ripperologist.info

                  Don.
                  "To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I made a mistake above. Strike Kings-Ann Road. I meant to say Gray's Inn-Road again.

                    Supe, thanks for the tip.

                    In the meantime, there's an echo here on the message boards. I note recent discussion of the press reports, as to the possibility of directed surveillance of an individual. And it's not Doctor T. A radius of several hundred yards from the Berner St. tragedy would, of course, take in many places. Including the business of Lewis Lis, general dealer, where he lived with his wife, and dress-making daughter, Mandel. 35 Plumber's Row.

                    Roy
                    Sink the Bismark

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hello Roy

                      Thanks for that..i'm currently checking out the Batty Street connection..so interesting back reading..

                      Might I be as bold to recommend "Rob House' post on current 'Aron or Not' thread number 24. Where he raises this question also.

                      Yours Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Didn't the Cutbush & Flood clan own 35 Plumber's Row?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thought Id resuscitate this thread...some really interesting points on the Lodger story. I think this man may have been responsible for Liz Strides murder, not Kates, and I don't see a Tumblety character here. Maybe just an out of area Jew who attended the meeting Saturday night.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I’’’’ve done extensive research on this man. I believe I know who he was and I also believe he was responsible for subsequent killings all the way through 1891, but not certain that he performed all of the murders himself.
                            Last edited by SuspectZero; 08-17-2019, 01:42 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              On a discussion of Hampshire Court (running between Berner St and Batty St), rjpalmer said;
                              "I've been interested in this 'passage' as well, but in the census sheets it is seemingly referred to as (1881) Murden's Row, or (1891) Murden Place."

                              I think this is because there are no actual houses in Hampshire Court. Murden's Place is a tiny court off it's north side centre (half way between the two streets), containing one or two addresses, as can hopefully be seen on this map;

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	_20190817_160253.JPG
Views:	99
Size:	132.0 KB
ID:	719139

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X