Walter Dew's section on JtR in his book

[curious]

Hi All,

Regarding Dew "slipping in the awfulness of the floor" here's another eye-witness account of Room 13—

"The sight of a room thus stained will not easily fade from my memory. It was the scene of the last and most fiendish of the crimes known as the "Whitechapel murders" in London. Blood was on the furniture, blood was on the floor, blood was on the walls, blood was everywhere."

It was written by Robert Anderson, so it must be true.

Regards,

Simon

But how could the murderer have escaped without leaving bloody footprints?

Curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Casebook members have a vendetta against witnesses,
Elizabeth long
Albert Cadouche
Schwartz
Packer,
Lawande and co.
Major H Smith
Nathen Shine
Michael Kidney
Hutchinson
Maxwell .[Mrs]
Maurice Lewis,
And now Walter Dew, plus several more one could mention, such as Mrs Prater etc.
These were proberly lying , or mistaken in some form, in the case of Dew, he was proberly never even present at the court that morning, he just invented the whole episode to boost his book sells.
Do we honestly believe that?
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

"The sight of a room thus stained will not easily fade from my memory. It was the scene of the last and most fiendish of the crimes known as the "Whitechapel murders" in London. Blood was on the furniture, blood was on the floor, blood was on the walls, blood was everywhere."

It was written by Robert Anderson, so it must be true.

That clinches it for me, Simon! If Anderson said it, then I'll take it on good authority... that the opposite was true

PS: I don't think he was even there, was he? At least, he doesn't get mentioned as visiting 13 Miller's Court in any of the contemporary references.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
In which case I should have added Robert Anderson amongst the fibbers,
Richard,

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Yes, Anderson was at Room 13. I've got a press cutting somewhere. I'll dig it out and post it.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Here ya go, from the Daily Telegraph, 10th November 1888—

"Mr. Anderson, the recently-appointed Assistant-Commissioner, had driven up in a cab at ten minutes to two o'clock, and he remained for some time."

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Here ya go, from the Daily Telegraph, 10th November 1888—

"Mr. Anderson, the recently-appointed Assistant-Commissioner, had driven up in a cab at ten minutes to two o'clock, and he remained for some time."

Regards,

Simon

I stand corrected, Simon. Thanks for that.

I still think he was exaggerating the mess in that room, though, and the photos support that conclusion.

[Stephen Thomas]

the photos support that conclusion.

The photos don't show the floor, Sam

[Sam Flynn]

The photos don't show the floor, Sam

True, Stephen - although they show the splashes of blood that hit the partition wall, as per Bond's account.

Taking that in conjunction with Bond's report of blood having soaked into the mattress and having pooled on the floor in the top RH corner of the bed, there's little to suggest that the floor would have been awash with blood, at least not until such time as the bed was moved, and then only in that particular corner of the room.

Hardly "blood on the furniture, on the walls [plural]... blood was everywhere", as recalled by Anderson.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's the full context of Anderson's description of Room 13, from Chapter 17 of "The Gospel and its Ministry". The book was originally written in 1876, and the first post-Millers Court edition I can find is 1893.

Death was already past, and the sprinkled blood was the memorial of that death. And this too was the significance of the sprinkled blood within the veil, which had continuing efficacy to cleanse from sin. How can any one picture to himself those foul, black stains upon the golden mercy-seat, and yet imagine that they represented life in its activities, presented in joyful service to God! If such were the teaching, is it possible to conceive any symbolism more inapt? Imagine a bereaved mother or wife bedaubing her home with the blood of a dead child or husband in order to keep fresh in her heart the great fact and truth of life!


The sight of a room thus stained will not easily fade from my memory. It was the scene of the last and most fiendish of the crimes known as the "Whitechapel murders" in London. Blood was on the furniture, blood was on the floor, blood was on the walls, blood was everywhere. Did this speak to me of life? Yes, but of life gone, of life destroyed, and, therefore, of that which is the very antithesis of life. Every blood-stain in that horrid room spoke of death.

And here I ask the question, If God intended to teach the truth that the sinner could approach Him. Only on the ground of death, could divine wisdom find a fitter symbol than that the priest should carry with him into His presence the blood of the Vicarious sacrifice? If, on the other hand, any one seeks thus to enforce the doctrine which these teachers would connect with it, we may well exclaim, Could perverted ingenuity suggest an imagery more incongruous and false! To teach that poured out, putrefying blood represents not death but life, is not only a departure from the truth of Scripture, but an outrage upon the commonest instincts of mankind.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

I don't really see the point in any of this... I don't see how Anderson's statement could possibly be seen as an exaggeration.

Blood on the floor - check
Blood on the furniture- check
blood on the walls - whoah! Hold on! There was only blood on one wall (as far as we know) - This is clearly typical of Anderson's tendency to exaggerate!
Blood everywhere - Again! A gross exaggeration! There was not blood everywhere! There were plenty of places in that room where there was no blood! More of Anderson's "fairy tales"!

Isn't this a bit pedantic? Come on. Let's get real.

Rob H

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't this a bit pedantic? Come on. Let's get real.

The reality was something like this, Rob:



Edit, to add...

I suppose the point is that, had Anderson said "there was blood that had splashed onto the wall by the bed, blood which had soaked into the mattress and pooled in one corner under the bed", it would have been closer to the truth, and hence would leave little room for misinterpretation - albeit it doesn't make for much of an exciting read. As it is, "blood on the furniture (which implies plurality), blood on the walls (plural again), blood everywhere" makes splendid copy, and is almost guaranteed to make the reader's imagination run riot.

[robhouse]

Sam,

I dont think it is for any of us to say, based on Bond's post mortem and on two black and white photographs, exactly how much blood there was in the room, and exactly where it was. Bond does mention blood on the floor

"The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes."

Also there was clearly blood on both the bed and the table (which is furniture, plural). In addition to this, I am sure there was additional blood in various locations all over the place... probably some dripped on the floor while he moved the flaps of skin onto the table. It was probably all over the bed. And I would not be surprised if there were splatters of blood on the headboard, the wall above the headboard, and elsewhere. I don't think it would be any exaggeration to describe the Kelly murder scene as having blood everywhere... even as a shorthand description. If Anderson had really wanted to be shocking, he could have quoted from Bond's description.

In any case... what is the point of all this?

Rob H

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Rob,

In any case... what is the point of all this?

That one should exercise a deal of caution when reading police memoirs* of that period - a tendency to dramatise, mis-remember and to invent seems to be present in them all, to a greater or lesser extent. It's only a small point, perhaps, but it's as germane to the interpretation of Anderson's writings as it is to those of the apparently reliable Walter Dew.

* and other sources, for that matter - including newspaper reports, witness statements etc.

[DVV]

Hi Rob,
That one should exercise a deal of caution when reading police memoirs* of that period - a tendency to dramatise, mis-remember and to invent seems to be present in them all, to a greater or lesser extent. It's only a small point, perhaps, but it's as germane to the interpretation of Anderson's writings as it is to those of the apparently reliable Walter Dew.

* and other sources, for that matter - including newspaper reports, witness statements etc.

Hi Sam,

right, but Anderson's words about Miller's Court hardly illustrate this "tendendy to dramatise", etc.

He was simply expressing the nightmare it was - with quite decent words, for someone who had really seen the crime scene.
The reality must have been far worse than the black and white picture. I guess not only my eyes, but my nose as well, would have been shocked.
"Blood everywhere" should be taken as "too much blood", imo.
I wouldn't blame Anderson for that.

Amitiés,
David