Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

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

  • #61
    4 witnesses said they saw Diemshutz by the body at between 12:40 and 12:45. They also stated others were also there at that time. Louis said he arrived "precisely at 1am". Fanny Mortimer was at her door to the street until 1am, she saw or heard no approaching cart, horse, or Louis. Israel Schwartz says at 12:45 he saw 2 people and Liz outside the gates on the street. Not one other witness saw anyone but the young couple on that street between 12:30 and 1.

    Louis's timing is discredited by the 4 witnesses, and Fanny Mortimer, and Israel has no proof at all anything happened outside the gates at 12:45.

    Its seems by the nature of most arguments here that these very salient points are not given their due.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

      Read the transcript.


      Edward Spooner, in reply to the coroner, said: I live at No. 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper with Messrs. Meredith, biscuit bakers. On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove- street, and then turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter, and they replied that a woman had been murdered. I thereupon proceeded down Berner-street and into Dutfield's-yard, adjoining the International Workmen's Club-house, and there saw a woman lying just inside the gate.


      It appears they met in Fairclough Street in the section between the junctions of Christian Street and Grove Street. Deimschutz apparently takes Grove Street as the location.


      Look at a map.
      Stop missing the point.

      I asked you why you believed Spooner rather than Diemschitz, on this point, and you seem to have to have nothing beyond "it appears they met in Fairclough street".

      Now let's quit mucking around and have a think about Ed Spooner...

      A man is seen throwing Stride to the ground, somewhere that night, and a statement is given to the police in regards to the incident.
      The statement giver recognizes Stride as the murdered woman.
      That person must have been at Dutfield's Yard, after the murder, and on the street and at the time Stride was assaulted - presumably a different street.
      So where else was Stride that evening? One place we know of was the Bricklayer's Arm's, on Settles St.
      Who else was on Settles St that night, and at Dutfield's Yard? Yes that's right...
      https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...034#post741034
      Anyone else? Yes, I think there was at least one other individual who we know something about.

      So what about Schwartz' story, as given to Abberline?
      How did Israel know about the throw down incident, or was Liz thrown to the ground twice that night?
      If only once, who told Israel about it, or was he too on Settles St that evening, and witnessed it himself?
      It seems possible that he were there, as he told the Star he had gone out for the day while his wife moved house.

      Now back to Ed.

      Why did ES say he walked with his young woman to the Beehive, quietly?
      Why not noisily singing 'Rule, Britannia'? Did he not want to be noticed?

      Why does ES say something odd about the time - how can he stand outside the Beehive 12:30-1:00, and arrive at DY at 12:35?
      What happened to the half hour 12:00-12:30?
      What time did the pubs close on Settles St?

      Why did Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky begin their search for police by going down Fairclough St, and into Grove St - finding no PC, but instead pick up ES, who is conveniently waiting there, alone. The logical place to go for police would have been Commercial Rd, which btw, is closer to 40 Berner St than is Grove St.

      Why is ES the only witness who claims to see the cachous in Stride's right hand? Everyone else who mentioned a hand, said the left.
      Why does the cachous appear to change hands after Spooner is at the body? What's he doing down there?

      There are other things to think about. For example, why does Matthew Packer seemingly change his story, not just in regards to who and what he saw, but when he saw it? I can't help thinking that Packer's moving timeframe and Spooner's missing half hour, are in some way related.
      Packer said the man who bought grapes from him lives near Batty St. Does Spooner live near Batty St?

      Could it be the case that Spooner's mysterious lady was neither disposed of outside the Beehive, nor accompanied him to Dutfield's Yard?
      Was she in fact, already there?
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 10-12-2020, 11:41 PM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Chava View Post
        I've always been fascinated by the locations of the killings, as all of them with the exception of Nicholls in Buck's Row take place in broadened out areas which are arrived at through narrow passages. I thought the victims might have self-selected this way as they led their punter to these places. But now I'm wondering if it's possible that The Whitechapel Murderer is a lot more organized than he appears, and perhaps he did what a number of serials have done since, which is scout locations and check on them carefully before committing a murder there. If that's the case, then he would know about prostitutes taking their tricks to the backyard or 1st floor of 29 Hanbury Street. He would perhaps even know the customs of the people living in that house--what time they woke & went out to work etc etc. He may even have visited that back yard. He would know that the Club in Duffield's Yard was raucous and loud until late so that a killing in the shadows might not be overheard. He would know that the warehouse caretakers in Mitre Square didn't venture out at night and that few people were walking in that neighbourhood in the small hours. If Nicholls was the first, he didn't get what he was after. Sounds like he was disturbed probably by the guys who found the body. He may have decided to be more careful in future. And if so, it paid off for him. Which means he might be site-specific rather than victim-specific. He decides it's his night for fun. Hangs around his chosen location. Waits for someone to go--or totter--by. Says 'hallo'.
        I have long suspected this could well have been the case (and have raised it before). I think that it certainly explains the timings involved in the murder (I just don't think the murderer could have been so lucky, so much of the time in terms of committing the act and then escaping) and the period of time between the murders. I think it would have been relatively easy for someone calculating to scope out each location and know the habits of the people using those locations. I don't think it is out of the bounds of possibility that he even knew or was at least familiar with the victims (maybe with the exception of Catherine Eddowes?). He could well have been an high functioning individual along the lines of Ted Bundy, who could well have made contact with the victims, a while before their murder (could this explain why they may have been at ease with the murderer?).

        JtR may not have been distinctive or stood out, he could have used an alias when contacting/speaking to the victims prior to their murder, so chances are he may not have stood out. Equally I doubt in the hustle and bustle he would have been noticed if he spent some time scoping the murder sites out, as evidence would suggest, he may well have been quite adept at concealing himself. Lots of dark corners, so plenty of opportunities to hide and observe. Maybe he started out as a 'peeping tom'?

        Nothing concrete or definitive here but I don't think this perspective can be dismissed out of hand. Thanks for raising Chava!

        Tristan
        Best Regards,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • #64
          Any chance of bringing this thread backing to discussing Chava's original question? Can some of you not start yet another thread on the Stride murder or jump onto a related thread. Sorry but do get a little annoyed when threads get hijacked by people's 'pet projects'. Cant we all try to be a little more open minded and discuss some new avenues?

          Tristan
          Best Regards,

          Tristan

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Stop missing the point.

            I asked you why you believed Spooner rather than Diemschitz, on this point, and you seem to have to have nothing beyond "it appears they met in Fairclough street".

            Now let's quit mucking around and have a think about Ed Spooner...

            A man is seen throwing Stride to the ground, somewhere that night, and a statement is given to the police in regards to the incident.
            The statement giver recognizes Stride as the murdered woman.
            That person must have been at Dutfield's Yard, after the murder, and on the street and at the time Stride was assaulted - presumably a different street.
            So where else was Stride that evening? One place we know of was the Bricklayer's Arm's, on Settles St.
            Who else was on Settles St that night, and at Dutfield's Yard? Yes that's right...
            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...034#post741034
            Anyone else? Yes, I think there was at least one other individual who we know something about.

            So what about Schwartz' story, as given to Abberline?
            How did Israel know about the throw down incident, or was Liz thrown to the ground twice that night?
            If only once, who told Israel about it, or was he too on Settles St that evening, and witnessed it himself?
            It seems possible that he were there, as he told the Star he had gone out for the day while his wife moved house.

            Now back to Ed.

            Why did ES say he walked with his young woman to the Beehive, quietly?
            Why not noisily singing 'Rule, Britannia'? Did he not want to be noticed?

            Why does ES say something odd about the time - how can he stand outside the Beehive 12:30-1:00, and arrive at DY at 12:35?
            What happened to the half hour 12:00-12:30?
            What time did the pubs close on Settles St?

            Why did Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky begin their search for police by going down Fairclough St, and into Grove St - finding no PC, but instead pick up ES, who is conveniently waiting there, alone. The logical place to go for police would have been Commercial Rd, which btw, is closer to 40 Berner St than is Grove St.

            Why is ES the only witness who claims to see the cachous in Stride's right hand? Everyone else who mentioned a hand, said the left.
            Why does the cachous appear to change hands after Spooner is at the body? What's he doing down there?

            There are other things to think about. For example, why does Matthew Packer seemingly change his story, not just in regards to who and what he saw, but when he saw it? I can't help thinking that Packer's moving timeframe and Spooner's missing half hour, are in some way related.
            Packer said the man who bought grapes from him lives near Batty St. Does Spooner live near Batty St?

            Could it be the case that Spooner's mysterious lady was neither disposed of outside the Beehive, nor accompanied him to Dutfield's Yard?
            Was she in fact, already there?
            I take what both are saying and balance the evidence given.


            As for the rest of your post, these are your own questions for your own argument. It's not my contention, it's yours. Answer your own questions.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
              Any chance of bringing this thread backing to discussing Chava's original question? Can some of you not start yet another thread on the Stride murder or jump onto a related thread. Sorry but do get a little annoyed when threads get hijacked by people's 'pet projects'. Cant we all try to be a little more open minded and discuss some new avenues?

              Tristan
              To be fair, Chava's original question is about all the locations so is open to talk about each of the murders on their individual basis.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                I take what both are saying and balance the evidence given.
                So on balance: Spooner right - Diemschitz wrong

                Well glad we got that sorted.
                Although, could we now increase the level of difficulty, by throwing an extra witness into the mix?

                [Times, Oct 6] James Brown (35 Fairclough St): When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opposite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street.

                [Times, Oct 3] Edward Spooner: As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.

                As for the rest of your post, these are your own questions for your own argument. It's not my contention, it's yours. Answer your own questions.
                So I get to provide the questions and the answers? An interesting division of labor!

                Okay, that's fine with me, and you may not be surprised to learn that those questions were partly rhetorical.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                  To be fair, Chava's original question is about all the locations so is open to talk about each of the murders on their individual basis.
                  MMMMm. Ok. Though not seeing to much in discussion around scope out the murder locations first, just a lot of speculation on the chain of events relating to the Stride murder.

                  Tristan
                  Best Regards,

                  Tristan

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Because once the double event is cracked, so is the case
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      So on balance: Spooner right - Diemschitz wrong

                      Well glad we got that sorted.
                      Although, could we now increase the level of difficulty, by throwing an extra witness into the mix?

                      [Times, Oct 6] James Brown (35 Fairclough St): When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opposite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street.

                      [Times, Oct 3] Edward Spooner: As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.



                      So I get to provide the questions and the answers? An interesting division of labor!

                      Okay, that's fine with me, and you may not be surprised to learn that those questions were partly rhetorical.
                      On balance, the going to look for police and running towards Grove Street and returning to Dutfield's Yard with Edward Spooner in tow at on or just after 1am appears to be the correct run of events.

                      James Brown appears to corroborate both Diemschutz and Spooner in both what the say and timings given. He got home at about 12:45am and heard the shouts for the police about 15 minutes later. That takes it to about 1am. He's fairly certain he saw Elizabeth Stride alive at about 12:45am. The policeman comes after so has no impact on when Diemschutz and Spooner arrive at Dutfield's Yard. PC Smith doesn't appear to identify himself as that constable and PC Lamb doesn't identify another policeman being there on his arrival, so who is the policeman seen on the corner of Christian Street? If going by PC Smith's beat it should be him but he suggests he arrives after PC Lamb and makes no mention of blowing his whistle. He says he was last in Berner Street about 10 minutes before James Brown. Both mention seeing a man in a long dark coat with Elizabeth Stride. Is the policeman on Christian Street and called for and heard to blow his whistle PC Smith or another constable unaccounted for?

                      Notably, James Brown makes no mention of hearing any screams or shout of, "Lipski!" while at Berner Street at the relevant time or while he's tucking into his supper. the first shouts he hears are that of "Murder!" and "Police!" coming from Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky as they ran down Fairclough Street towards Grove Street and passed Edward Spooner as he stood outside The Beehive at about 1am. No doubt they were looking for a policeman that usually passes that way on their beat, who on that night happened to be PC Smith.


                      BIB - It's not a division of labour. It's how an argument works. You present a contention, it's questioned, you provide answers to those questions in support of your contention. You concede when you are unable to provide an answer to your own argument.

                      An argument is not demanding others answer questions to support a contention that is not theirs to begin with. It's your contention. You provide the answers.


                      However, I will address one of your earlier questions as it relates to my point above:

                      Why did Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky begin their search for police by going down Fairclough St, and into Grove St - finding no PC, but instead pick up ES, who is conveniently waiting there, alone. The logical place to go for police would have been Commercial Rd, which btw, is closer to 40 Berner St than is Grove St.

                      The distance to Commercial Road and the distance to Gove Street from Dutfield's Yard is about the same. It's likely that Diemschutz had hoped or expected to find a policeman around that area at around that time. Morris Eagle had already gone in the direction of Commercial Road for police so the logical place to go after that is in the opposite direction to spread the chance of finding a constable.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                        MMMMm. Ok. Though not seeing to much in discussion around scope out the murder locations first, just a lot of speculation on the chain of events relating to the Stride murder.

                        Tristan
                        Do you have any points about the other murder locations you'd like to put forward?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                          I have long suspected this could well have been the case (and have raised it before). I think that it certainly explains the timings involved in the murder (I just don't think the murderer could have been so lucky, so much of the time in terms of committing the act and then escaping) and the period of time between the murders. I think it would have been relatively easy for someone calculating to scope out each location and know the habits of the people using those locations. I don't think it is out of the bounds of possibility that he even knew or was at least familiar with the victims (maybe with the exception of Catherine Eddowes?). He could well have been an high functioning individual along the lines of Ted Bundy, who could well have made contact with the victims, a while before their murder (could this explain why they may have been at ease with the murderer?).

                          JtR may not have been distinctive or stood out, he could have used an alias when contacting/speaking to the victims prior to their murder, so chances are he may not have stood out. Equally I doubt in the hustle and bustle he would have been noticed if he spent some time scoping the murder sites out, as evidence would suggest, he may well have been quite adept at concealing himself. Lots of dark corners, so plenty of opportunities to hide and observe. Maybe he started out as a 'peeping tom'?

                          Nothing concrete or definitive here but I don't think this perspective can be dismissed out of hand. Thanks for raising Chava!

                          Tristan
                          The thing is that so many people assume a kind of blitz attack where the killer jumps out of the shadows and murders the woman. Annie Chapman was alive as she voluntarily entered 29 Hanbury Street so I assume she had some kind of conversation with her killer. She may have been the woman Elizabeth Long sees picking up a trick at 5.30--except the timing is off even for the later TOD. And there is missing time on her as there is on almost all the victims. For all we know, he spends quite a while talking to them ahead of killing them. This is why I like Mr Blotchy for the murders--that and the fact that someone matching his description is involved in at least one other murder and a failed attempt on Ada Wilson in Mile End earlier in the year...

                          However if he does spend time with them he manages to stay away from being seen.

                          Best,
                          Chava

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Chava View Post

                            The thing is that so many people assume a kind of blitz attack where the killer jumps out of the shadows and murders the woman. Annie Chapman was alive as she voluntarily entered 29 Hanbury Street so I assume she had some kind of conversation with her killer. She may have been the woman Elizabeth Long sees picking up a trick at 5.30--except the timing is off even for the later TOD. And there is missing time on her as there is on almost all the victims. For all we know, he spends quite a while talking to them ahead of killing them. This is why I like Mr Blotchy for the murders--that and the fact that someone matching his description is involved in at least one other murder and a failed attempt on Ada Wilson in Mile End earlier in the year...

                            However if he does spend time with them he manages to stay away from being seen.

                            Best,
                            Chava
                            not sure if you saw my earlier post but i like blotchy too... i think hes one of a handful of suspects that are the most valid. i agree, i think he chats them up and most likely lets them lead him to the spots. the peaked cap man seems to spend a considerable amout of time with stride. the ripper and kelly seemed to have possibly known each other, or at least he knew her..as shes the only one murdered in her place.

                            re blotchy..not only the man who attacked ada wilson, but lawendes man is described as having fair hair, and i guess blond is closer to reddish hair than dark brown. i beleive the man seen by mrs fiddymont at the pub was also, blond or reddish hair? if not theres some story of a man with reddish hair being followed. im going on memory here so may be wrong.

                            however, i disagree with your last sentence. i think he is seen but dosnt care too much as long as he isnt recognized.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              That's the difference between seen and noticed. Jack was seen daily, IMO. Noticed? Not at all.
                              Thems the Vagaries.....

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Chava View Post

                                The thing is that so many people assume a kind of blitz attack where the killer jumps out of the shadows and murders the woman. Annie Chapman was alive as she voluntarily entered 29 Hanbury Street so I assume she had some kind of conversation with her killer. She may have been the woman Elizabeth Long sees picking up a trick at 5.30--except the timing is off even for the later TOD. And there is missing time on her as there is on almost all the victims. For all we know, he spends quite a while talking to them ahead of killing them. This is why I like Mr Blotchy for the murders--that and the fact that someone matching his description is involved in at least one other murder and a failed attempt on Ada Wilson in Mile End earlier in the year...

                                However if he does spend time with them he manages to stay away from being seen.

                                Best,
                                Chava
                                He could well have built up a 'casual' relationship with one or all of the victims. I think it is important that to consider that he could well have been the cold calculating type rather than of the lunatic variety, though this is often lost sight of when the injuries he inflicted are taken into consideration. If he is the former rather than the latter, I don't think either having long/coherent conversations with the victims or scoping out the murder locations beforehand is too out of the question.

                                Tristan
                                Best Regards,

                                Tristan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X