Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hanbury St. escape route.........?

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

  • Hanbury St. escape route.........?

    Of all of JTR's brazen attacks I find the one on Hanbury St. the most bold.
    How could he go to work somewhere between 3 and 5 in the morning beneath windows where a dozen or so people lived, with neighbors going to the outhouse next door, with stragglers milling about behind the fence and/or the road in front etc....astonishingly risky.....so my question is....how did he escape? Did he go back thru the hallway and house out the front door to the street or did he jump or go thru the back fence? Whichever route, I can't imagine that he wasn't seen or heard by someone...! This is why I kind of liked the James Hardiman(sp?) theory as he lived either in the house or next door I believe......Thoughts welcome......

    Greg

  • #2
    That's a very good point.
    My guess is, if anyone saw him, he made himself look as unimportant as possible so they would really notice.
    "Hide in plain sight."
    "You want to take revenge for my murdered sister? Sister would definitely have not ... we would not have wanted you to be like this."

    ~ Angelina Durless

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it's more about self-confidence.

      Amitiés,
      David

      Comment


      • #4
        The ACT of commiting the murder in such a place was indeed bold. Had he been disturbed while 'at work' it would have been much more dramatic than simply leaving the scene unsatisfied as (perhaps...) at Berner Street. Yes there was only one exit route there, but at least (to the killer's mind) it was a large enough area by the IWMEC that he would not necessarily have been spotted immediately by anyone coming along the passage (as he was not by Diemschutz) and also it would buy him a little more time. Had he been disturbed in the act of murdering Chapman, then you are correct - he would have had no escape. It is worth remembering that to the popular mind at the time this was the 4th killing, and the series was well underway. Look at the language in some of the reports of Nicholls' murder to get some idea of how the majority of the local populace would have felt about finding the 'fiend', literally, red-handed.

        Once the act was commited, however, his escape is not all that dramatic, for reasons you have actually posited yourself. The early hours of the morning in 1888 London were a lot busier than they are now, and you are right in saying there would likely have been a great deal of activity around Hanbury St at the time. If we follow that through, then once the killer was over the risk of being discovered in the act, it was actually pretty easy for him to blend into the general hubbub. No-one knew that a body lay in the yard, and so who was he as he passed through the passageway (my opinion, as leaping fences would in itself bring unnecessary attention) but just one more person 'milling about'?

        It is a pervasive myth that 'Jack' was never seen, and it has led to all sorts of varyingly ludicrous 'explanations' such as an array of disguises, supernatural powers, or more prosaicly simply an extraordinary cool, calm and cunning. In fact all he needed was a bit of luck and timing, and a lot of front. Tens or even hundreds of people probably saw him, bumped into him in the street, possibly even spoke to him about the murders, at work or at home. They just didn't know at the time to be looking out for a suspicious 'psycho', until it was too late. And it's never the man standing next to you, is it???

        Comment


        • #5
          Nondescript.......

          Excellent points tnb............he probably did just as you mentioned but the boldness and luck are still extraordinary.........he must have spent at least 15 minutes slicing and dicing while the door could have flown open with the appearance of the boot strap man for instance.....then it's off with a few organs and a sharp knife in the pocket......unreal....he must have been a very nondescript individual..........


          Greg

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
            Excellent points tnb............he probably did just as you mentioned but the boldness and luck are still extraordinary.........he must have spent at least 15 minutes slicing and dicing while the door could have flown open with the appearance of the boot strap man for instance.....then it's off with a few organs and a sharp knife in the pocket......
            The whole debate about 'Jack's' medical knowledge and/or intentions is a hornet's nest - but if we are assuming that he either he had some medical training (and thus knew what he was looking for, and how) or he had none and was simply after whatever he could get, then fifteen minutes is an overestimation by Dr. Phillips. As chilling as it is, a good surgeon or a complete lunatic with good hands could do what 'Jack' did to Annie Chapman in under five or six minutes. And the organs he took would have amounted only to the size of a couple of average sized oranges; as you say, he could very easily haved slipped them into a pocket. Grim, but possible.

            Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
            ....he must have been a very nondescript individual..........
            I think it's safe to say that he probably didn't have 'glowing eyes' or a wooden arm, a 'fearful look' and four inches of knife sticking out of his pocket - nor was he the kind of man to change his clothes in full sight of a street seller and declare to him 'that was a terrible murder last night, wasn't it'!


            'Hide in plain sight' is spot on.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hello tnb, all,

              The whole debate about 'Jack's' medical knowledge and/or intentions is a hornet's nest....
              amongst others, no? hahaha

              best wishes

              Phil
              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


              Justice for the 96 = achieved
              Accountability? ....

              Comment


              • #8
                or could he have been wearing something that would not make him a suspect in the eyes of a witness ? for example a policemans uniform ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  In some respects, the yard in Hanbury Street was safer than other spots.
                  No constable to fear, to begin with.

                  Amitiés,
                  David

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have been wondering about JTR climbing over the rear wall.
                    I have been unable to discover what lay behind number 29's garden, but in my James Mason London nobody knows film there is what appears to be a back garden behind number 29's back fence.

                    doris
                    ..."(this is my literary discovery and is copyright protected)"...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You may have a point David. In one way, you could argue that Buck's Row was the most 'daring' kill as any constable or witness could have come from any direction, and if you look at all the other sites the options are limited.

                      In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that he felt he nearly did get caught during Nicholl's murder, as there is a noticeable change of location choice as the series develops - from Buck's Row (street) to backyard (Chapman), passageway (Stride) or enclosed square (Eddowes), and of course reaching some sort of natural conclusion with the indoor killing of Kelly. Excluding*Kelly*the*latter*sites*have*more inherent risk but at least he could control the variables.
                      *
                      That depends on your view of victims of course but it is in my opinion at least a tangible pattern, more so than the 'escalation theory' which to my mind is not so much about escalating desire and much more about increasing experience.

                      I would have expected at least one witness to mention 'a policeman has already come from down there' when the body was discovered, to be honest with you Jason. Interesting though.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I know what you mean regarding the policeman . I have often thought
                        (a). would a policeman always be seen on the streets at night.
                        (b) would a witness always recall a policemans presence at the site? would it be seen as being something out of the ordinary ?
                        (c) and would they have been reliable to place the time they saw them exactly, especially when the so called pandemonium set in after discovery of a body?

                        i have often thought that a policemans uniform would have been the perfect disguise for JTR and i think i have said before, that i would love to know whether the standard issue uniform of the time would have absorbed blood or shown it at a quick glance to a person walking by ? in a violent place like the east end in 1888, would blood on a uniform have been a difficult thing to explain away for a beat constable ? I have also questioned previously whether they walked the beat alone or in pairs ? During october when the police presence was at its height, then maybe they found it too difficult to carry out their crime and it was only a few weeks later after the heat had died down that they were once again left to resume their deeds.

                        It may not have necessarily been a serving policeman , it could have been an impostor or a disgraced former policeman , or i may be so far away from the ball field !!! and i am sure i will probably be told i am !!
                        Last edited by Jason; 03-11-2010, 12:33 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Uniform etc.....

                          This raises some questions Jason.......would a policeman be able to talk prostitutes into dark corners? Were they users of such women? I don't know the answer to that.......? Also, if he wasn't a policeman I would expect he would need to discard the uniform before being seen by people who knew him or even other policeman! If he lived alone well that might be another story although in that crowded environment you would expect he'd be seen. One might ask, what is that weird 'Jack' the butcher doing in a policeman's uniform? I have no evidence for this but a uniform seems a bit overorganized and logistically difficult for JTR. I see him as an angry savage of opportunity who only got lucky.....

                          Greg

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Surely as peelers in those days had their own beats, in order that they knew the local ne'er do wells. Would not a stranger dressed a policeman would be instantly recognisable by locals as being spurious?

                            doris
                            ..."(this is my literary discovery and is copyright protected)"...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              who is to say that they did not know them ? wouldnt someone you know be the one you trust most ?

                              I once read that a murderer who knows a victim more than often attacks from the front in order for them to see the person who is attacking them , whereas the murderer who doesnt know the victim is more likely to attack from the rear due to a de-personalisation of the crime in the attackers eyes. How did the victims die ? from my understanding of them, they were slaughtered from the front . Does this indicate anything ? maybe not ....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X