'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[ChrisGeorge]

Thanks for that great information, Monty.

Cheers

Chris

[PhiltheBear]

Again, that's up to you, Phil. But Dave Yost, Alex Chisholm, and Christopher-Michael DiGrazia published their excellent book News from Whitechapel some years ago and they used the articles from the Daily Telegraph as the basis of their book because of its acknowledged reliability.

The Telegraph is just one of a number of newspapers that reports that Eddowes replied "Nothing" to Robinson's question, and it appears that you yourself are now acknowledging that the police constable both wrote that she replied "Nothing" to him and that he said the same thing in court, as reported by those newspapers. Yes the wording of the events as described by the several newspapers is a bit different but that reply is reported the same way. I'll also acknowledge that The Times did not report that reply by Eddowes but that does not mean she didn't say it.

Chris,

I'm one of those sceptics that tends to think that people who write books on JtR do so to push a version of events that they believe in (My forthcoming monograph "The Truth about Goulston Street" being an exception, of course... )

Therefore, I tend to stick with primary, factual documents and, in this instance, I'll stay with the coroner's record and not the papers. I agree 100% with you that what was recorded is that Eddowes replied "Nothing" when asked her name.

However, my opinion is that she was too drunk to reply and didn't say anything. That fits with the testimonies of both the arresting officer saying she was incapable and needed 2 people to get her to the station and the custody sergeant stating that she was unable to reply when questioned. If she was unable to give her name and address how was she able to say 'Nothing'?

It's a major problem with all JtR 'investigations'. There are lots of theories, suspects, etc. very, very few of which gel with common sense and actual hard facts. Come to that, there aren't that many hard facts available either. Being a pedantic sort of chap I'll go with the common sense solution every time. The rest may be amusing, and provide those 'heated arguments' that Ripperologists indulge in, but they are exceedingly unlikely to be correct. After all, if they were, then we know that Patricia Cornwell solved it all for us. Don't we?

Phil

[Bridewell]

However, my opinion is that she was too drunk to reply and didn't say anything. That fits with the testimonies of both the arresting officer saying she was incapable and needed 2 people to get her to the station and the custody sergeant stating that she was unable to reply when questioned. If she was unable to give her name and address how was she able to say 'Nothing'?

The written statements of the witnesses (as opposed to press reports about the inquest) are on file at the Corporation of London Records office.

Louis Robinson (arresting officer): "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells."

James Byfield, Station Sergeant: "...she was very drunk having to be supported by the 2 constables who brought her in. She was taken back to the cell and detained there until one o'clock in the morning when she was sober. I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when brought in."


This is how the incident is worded in the officers' own witness statements. The records suggest that she was unable to give her name and address, not that she was incapable of speech. I don't see an ambiguity in the original documentation - "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

Regards, Bridewell.

[PhiltheBear]

The written statements of the witnesses (as opposed to press reports about the inquest) are on file at the Corporation of London Records office.

Louis Robinson (arresting officer): "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells."

James Byfield, Station Sergeant: "...she was very drunk having to be supported by the 2 constables who brought her in. She was taken back to the cell and detained there until one o'clock in the morning when she was sober. I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when brought in."


This is how the incident is worded in the officers' own witness statements. The records suggest that she was unable to give her name and address, not that she was incapable of speech. I don't see an ambiguity in the original documentation - "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

Regards, Bridewell.

You missed the first bit of Robinson's testimony - where she was so drunk he needed help to get her to the police station. It also said she was so drunk that when he put her against the shutters she fell over. And I've highlighted for you the relevant bit of Byfield's statement.

It says she was unable to give her name and address. Not - she said 'Nothing'. It strongly suggests that she was so drunk she couldn't give any intelligible reply and thus when asked her name she said nothing at all.

Two differing versions of the same event. Robinson v Byfield. I'll go with the experienced Sergeant.

[Monty]

It says she was unable to give her name and address. Not - she said 'Nothing'.

Firstly, just because she was incapable to stand does not mean she was incapable of speech.

Secondly, she may not have been able to give an address because she didnt have one or could not recall her last lodgings, not because she physically could not talk.

That or she was just being cagey.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Two differing versions of the same event. Robinson v Byfield. I'll go with the experienced Sergeant.

I take your point but I'm not sure it's that simple:

Robinson: "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply, 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells".

Byfield: "She was taken back to the cell and detained there..."

Perhaps, a few minutes apart, two different occasions on the same evening?

What she was unable to do when brought in was to stand unsupported and to give her name and address. This does not necessarily mean that she was completely incapable of speech. Furthermore, while Robinson could have chosen to make the ambiguous statement, "she said nothing", he didn't. He preferred the clumsier, but unambiguous, phrase, "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

It's quite possible, and in my experience likely, that both Robinson and Byfield tried to get the information out of her over the course of a few minutes. There was nothing, in a pre PACE era, to stop the arresting officer from placing a prisoner directly in a cell without troubling the sergeant. The sergeant, once informed, would probably have had her brought out, in an attempt to elicit the name & address himself before, after failing in the attempt, having her taken back to the cell. I think that's what happened.

Robinson says that, when asked her name, she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ". Byfield says that she was unable to give her name and address when brought in. I don't see that the statements contradict each other. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. I concede the point that the more likely event is that a prisoner would "say nothing" in the sense of making no reply, but I think the evidence, as presented by all the sources, suggests that the less likely event, that she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ", is what actually took place.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm one of those sceptics that tends to think that people who write books on JtR do so to push a version of events that they believe in (My forthcoming monograph "The Truth about Goulston Street" being an exception, of course...

LOL, so it takes a sceptic to conclude that authors publish theories they believe in? I greatly look forward to The Truth About Goulston Street by Phil T. Bear, and will keep in mind that you mean not a word of what you've written.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Has Monty turned pro-graffitist?

Monty, thanks for the excellent info on Goulston Street. The Goads map and photos were very helpful, though I remember you discussing the recesses years back. And you're correct, if the Ripper simply wanted to toss away his apron, throwing it into one of the many recesses would have been the likely occurrence. Yet another reason to suppose he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Monty, thanks for the excellent info on Goulston Street. The Goads map and photos were very helpful, though I remember you discussing the recesses years back. And you're correct, if the Ripper simply wanted to toss away his apron, throwing it into one of the many recesses would have been the likely occurrence. Yet another reason to suppose he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

That's true, Tom. If the Ripper had wanted to dispose of the piece of apron, he could have done it in a number of ways. Taken it home to burn it, bury it, or whatever. He could have thrown it down one of the recesses or down a sewer. Instead of those things, he did something else entirely: he left it on a public pathway, i.e., an entrance into a building, where it was bound to be found before long. That's worth considering.

Best regards

Chris

[Monty]

Monty, thanks for the excellent info on Goulston Street. The Goads map and photos were very helpful, though I remember you discussing the recesses years back. And you're correct, if the Ripper simply wanted to toss away his apron, throwing it into one of the many recesses would have been the likely occurrence. Yet another reason to suppose he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No, Monty hasnt.

There are other, more valid reasons for leaving the apron piece there....dont get too excited.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty. And what reasons could be 'more valid'?

I believe the graffiti is legit Ripper evidence. I'm not so sure about the Lusk kidney, because unlike the apron piece, it could not be established beyond doubt as having come from Eddowes. However, there is an interesting similarity between the two, and that is that the apron and the kidney were both utilized as a 'signature' for their respective messages.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

Look at Longs timings, and the time to cover Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

And then take in to account the recesses and Longs duty.

More valid reasons.

Monty

[PhiltheBear]

Tom,

Look at Longs timings, and the time to cover Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

And then take in to account the recesses and Longs duty.

More valid reasons.

Monty

Or, simply, Long didn't see it on his first pass? Perhaps his attention was drawn to something or somebody on the other side of the street as he passed the passageway? Or he didn't look. Perhaps it was already there.

[PhiltheBear]

Firstly, just because she was incapable to stand does not mean she was incapable of speech.

Secondly, she may not have been able to give an address because she didnt have one or could not recall her last lodgings, not because she physically could not talk.

That or she was just being cagey.

Monty

Monty, the sergeant said she was unable to give her name - not that she was able and didn't. She was too drunk to do so.

I take your point but I'm not sure it's that simple:

Robinson: "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply, 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells".

Byfield: "She was taken back to the cell and detained there..."

Perhaps, a few minutes apart, two different occasions on the same evening?

The Byfield statement doesn't infer she'd been in the cell. It infers the cell was at the back of the station - which it was.

What she was unable to do when brought in was to stand unsupported and to give her name and address. This does not necessarily mean that she was completely incapable of speech. Furthermore, while Robinson could have chosen to make the ambiguous statement, "she said nothing", he didn't. He preferred the clumsier, but unambiguous, phrase, "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

It's quite possible, and in my experience likely, that both Robinson and Byfield tried to get the information out of her over the course of a few minutes. There was nothing, in a pre PACE era, to stop the arresting officer from placing a prisoner directly in a cell without troubling the sergeant. The sergeant, once informed, would probably have had her brought out, in an attempt to elicit the name & address himself before, after failing in the attempt, having her taken back to the cell. I think that's what happened.

Robinson says that, when asked her name, she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ". Byfield says that she was unable to give her name and address when brought in. I don't see that the statements contradict each other. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. I concede the point that the more likely event is that a prisoner would "say nothing" in the sense of making no reply, but I think the evidence, as presented by all the sources, suggests that the less likely event, that she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ", is what actually took place..

We'll agree to disagree.

LOL, so it takes a sceptic to conclude that authors publish theories they believe in? I greatly look forward to The Truth About Goulston Street by Phil T. Bear, and will keep in mind that you mean not a word of what you've written.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'll put you down for a signed copy

But reread what I wrote - I said that people publish to push their ideas not that they just publish ideas they believe in. Other than those books which are pure 'evidence' such as The Ultimate JtR Source Book, The Complete JtR A-Z and JtR An Encyclopedia almost every book on JtR I've read (and that's a lot over 35 years) pushes a theory - most of which are totally bonkers.

[Monty]

Thank you for highlighting unable in bold for me Phil,

Made it so clearer.

Nor did Byfield state she was incapable of speech, or any utterance for that matter.

Monty