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.
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.
Comment