Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Interesting purely speculative opinion, but not founded with what is known. Mary entered her room with someone, presumably someone she knew enough to sing to for over an hour. We dont know when he leaves, but we do know how she was found. In a small courtyard off a mean street, in a room created from a room within #26 Dorset Street, with one exit and almost a 20 ft arched stone tunnel just to get into the court. Almost naked in her own bed. He wasnt there by accident, and wasnt in Marys room while she was undressed by accident. Its either Blotchy, who she apparently knew, or someone after him...which is just guesswork without evidence that can be trusted. In other words, Not Georgies.
    Which is my point. My own personal preference for the killer is Blotchy for reasons I don't need to rehearse again here. But functionally there is no difference between 13 Millers Court and 29 Hanbury Street. If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places. And Mary was blind drunk. I don't think she needed anyone to sing to. She just felt like singing. Also we know from his own testimony that Barnett moved in with Mary basically the night they met. Also we know that Mary was a prostitute. She picks up a trick. He says he'd like to stay the night. I'm sure that would be fine with her. Or maybe you're right and she knew the killer. But we don't know which of those is the correct account of events. And we can't assume one is fact over the other.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chava View Post

      But functionally there is no difference between 13 Millers Court and 29 Hanbury Street. If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places.
      29 Hanbury St was a shared house - 13 Miller's Court was not.
      I'd say that counts as a functional difference.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        29 Hanbury St was a shared house - 13 Miller's Court was not.
        I'd say that counts as a functional difference.
        I'd say that as 29 wasn't Annie's regular address, that's the major difference.
        Thems the Vagaries.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Whether you believe I am incorrect or not, perhaps just review the facts and make up your own mind. Im not here to correct people, I want to discuss with knowledgeable people.
          Getting the impression you'd prefer if I left you alone.
          However, in case that impression is wrong, let's discuss these points...

          Edward Spooner's "25 minutes to one o'clock", requires 'interpretation'.

          No, it doesnt.
          Through what timespan was Spooner outside the Beehive? If not 12:30-1:00 (as he claimed), why do you suppose he makes mistakes with his times?

          What approx time was PC Smith last on Berner St? If about 12:35 as he stated, when did Spooner really arrive?

          Why didn't Fanny Mortimer see Spooner arrive with the other men? If it were because she were on her doorstep at later point, how long were non-club members by the body before any constable arrived? Spooner claimed it was 5 minutes, in his case. What time does that bring us to? Before 1am? Did Fanny miss police arrivals too?

          Who touched Stride's face, if not Ed Spooner?
          Had Spooner been in the yard at least 25 minutes, at that point?


          Who says Spooner is the only person who touched her?
          Why does Fanny Mortimer see a member of the public touching the deceased, if police were on site? Why did they allow this to occur?

          I had been there twenty minutes when a member named Gidleman came upstairs, and said "there is a woman dead in the yard."

          You do realize that Ive identified Eagle as a paid attendee, just like Louis, and they both are contradicted by the 3 unpaid attendees and 1 off site witness. Eagle say "I couldnt be sure whether a dead body was there". Look at the physical data, thats just not realistic.
          In the current context - determining your 4 witnesses - those points are irrelevant. Where does Gillen say he was by the body, no later than 12:45?

          By the way, did Kozebrodsky say he returned at 12:30, or arrived at 12:30?
          Kind of late to be arriving, don't you think?


          I dont know if this is pedantic, your poor reading or just argumentative, but he states he arrived back at the club.
          Evening News, Oct 1:

          I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there.

          How do you get 'arrived back' out of 'came into the club'?

          Re Louis accompanying Isaac or not, I will tell you about that another time...

          Gee, I can hardly wait, but Issac says explicitly that we was sent out alone. Your "illumination" isnt needed here.
          Why do you suppose no one agrees with you on this issue? Does everyone else lack your illumination?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • It depends which paper you read as to Kozebrodsky's arrival time. The Daily News, for example, reports;
            "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."

            The Irish Times has him also explicitly say that he had not left and returned in the meantime;
            "I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chava View Post

              Hi Caz,

              I hope you and your family are all well!

              I agree re Kelly and Millers Court. I don't see how we have any grounds to believe that Kelly knew her killer beforehand. She let Barnett move in with her immediately after she met him. And she was nothing if not available. I also agree that it's likely the victims chose the location. But I think that the killer stalked the area and knew all these locations--he may not have known 29 Hanbury St specifically. But that wasn't the only house tarts used to bring their tricks. Women on the stroll know all the places they can take a customer without being bothered or chased away. We can't discount the possibility that--like Peter Sutcliffe and Stephen Wright--the Whitechapel murderer had had normal encounters with a lot of the East End tarts and may well have been known to them. He'd have had a good idea of where he could find the places he was looking for. Because as you know I think the geography of the crime meant a great deal to him. So I do think he had some knowledge of that backyard or backyards similar. Something I haven't seen here--or at least it may have been here but I could have missed it--is that the houses had backyard privies. And if the front doors were permanently open, that's somewhere a passer-by might visit if caught short one day or night. So the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street may well have seen visitors who weren't there with prostitutes. If that's the case he can scope away even in the backyards!

              Love,
              Chava
              Thanks Chava. We are all very well and I hope you and yours are too.

              Good point about access to backyard privies. Up to the age of nine, I lived in a terraced house, with an alleyway which ran the length of the terrace at the rear. We had an outside lavatory at the back, which was grim in the winter, but luckily we also had one upstairs, which I much preferred - and always used after one of our neighbours found a dead tramp in their outside lav! I had nightmares about that alleyway until we moved house in the dreadful winter of 62/63, when my Mum and Dad had burst pipes to deal with, while I happily crunched through the deep snow to my primary school, now just a two minute walk away.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chava View Post

                I'm sorry Michael but we have no evidence for this. Kelly may have introduced the killer into the room while she was up & dressed. He may just have stuck around and looked like like he wanted to stay the night. Like Barnett did.
                I don't think it hurts to keep reminding ourselves just how quickly Kelly shacked up with Barnett after meeting him for the first time. She couldn't have known anything much about him when they first slept together, yet many people suspect he went on to murder her, and was even possibly Jack the Ripper, despite being cleared by the police. If that was the case, how well could Kelly have really known who she was living with, even after all that time?

                But the argument that Kelly - a prostitute, who now had the room to herself - most likely knew her killer because she 'had no objection' to entertaining him indoors, now November was here, is not supported by the evidence, which points equally, if not more, to a woman who may have thought she was safer in her room because the Whitechapel Murderer had only killed outdoors.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chava View Post

                  Which is my point. My own personal preference for the killer is Blotchy for reasons I don't need to rehearse again here. But functionally there is no difference between 13 Millers Court and 29 Hanbury Street. If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places. And Mary was blind drunk. I don't think she needed anyone to sing to. She just felt like singing. Also we know from his own testimony that Barnett moved in with Mary basically the night they met. Also we know that Mary was a prostitute. She picks up a trick. He says he'd like to stay the night. I'm sure that would be fine with her. Or maybe you're right and she knew the killer. But we don't know which of those is the correct account of events. And we can't assume one is fact over the other.
                  Spot on, Chava.

                  I don't see why this is so hard to grasp - unless one actually needs Kelly to have been 'entertaining' someone she knew, to fit some theory or other about the identity of her killer and his motive.

                  How many women just like Kelly must have chatted up potential paying customers they had never set eyes on before, and invited them back to their place as long as they seemed friendly and were generous with the booze?

                  If Michael prefers, he can drop the prostitute/customer relationship and just imagine a couple meeting in a pub, getting very friendly very quickly, and ending up having a one-night stand. It happens - all the time - even when there's a killer abroad in the neighbourhood. That is no less likely than Kelly only ever taking a man back to her humble little abode if she knew him well, by name, occupation and inside leg measurement.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                    It depends which paper you read as to Kozebrodsky's arrival time. The Daily News, for example, reports;
                    "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."

                    The Irish Times has him also explicitly say that he had not left and returned in the meantime;
                    "I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard."
                    Yes, and I was aware of the 6:30/12:30 contrast.
                    Arrival at 6:30 seems much more likely to have been what occurred. 12:30 sounds like he is turning-up just in time to participate in the murder!

                    What's interesting about these differing quotes is that only the Evening News seems to put the quote in quotation marks, and I can't as yet find another paper that states '12:30'. I know the double-quotes are important to some people. I personally think anything spoken in the first-person can be regarded as a near quote, or at least an accurate paraphrase.

                    This is the full Irish Times quote:

                    A young Russian Pole, named M. Kozebrodski, born in Warsaw, and who spoke the English language imperfectly, gave the following information:- I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a large pool of blood. It was running down the gutter, and in the direction of the gate, and reached about to the door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the direction of Diemshitz or some members of the club. I went in the direction of Grove street, and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I think she wore a dark jacket and a black dress. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom.

                    A few points:
                    • As soon as Kozebrodski sees the body, blood has already flowed more or less the entire distance to the side door. So how long before that did the interruption occur, and what did it consist of?
                    • Kozebrodsky then goes for police, at Diemschitz' request, or some other members of the club. This is in the direction of Grove St. The search fails. No mention of returning with a man (i.e. Spooner)
                    • Kozebrodsky then goes looking on Commercial Rd, with Eagle. Thus the searches along Fairclough to Grove back, and along Commercial Rd, did not occur concurrently - they occurred in sequence, and this would account for the complaints about how long it took to find police.
                    • It would also account for the approx 5 minutes that Ed Spooner says he was by the body before any police arrived. So how did Mr Harris hear the policeman's whistle, and mention it to Spooner, when Spooner first goes to the yard with Louis and Isaacs? Perhaps it was actually PC Lamb's whistle that Mr Harris (and Hochberg) heard, not that of PC Collins. In that case, Spooner cannot beat Lamb to the yard, and he certainly cannot fiddle with the cachous when he gets there!
                    • Kozebrodsky, like Diemschitz, is absolutely adamant that he sees grapes in Stride's right hand, when the doctor is examining the body. How can that be? He is clear on the relative arrivals of police, doctors and the inspector. He describes her clothes and sees the flower. He knows what he is talking about! So what's the story with the grapes?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      I'd say that as 29 wasn't Annie's regular address, that's the major difference.
                      Chava's point was: 'If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places.'

                      The differences would surely have been down to where Chapman and Kelly were willing to be alone with their killer, which was not necessarily within his control, but he went with both locations and stayed there to perform extensive mutilations, despite the risk of being trapped in either place. Both victims may have had a false sense of security, in locations they imagined the Whitechapel Murderer would avoid like the plague.

                      Assuming Dutfields Yard was where Stride wanted to be, for whatever reason, the location could have been a risk too far for her killer. Anyone could have entered or left the club while he was performing his mutilations, and he may have had a narrow escape from Hanbury Street for the same reason. Not quite having the nerve to chance it again here, but smarting with frustration, he went looking for another opportunity and got his mojo back in Mitre Square.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X



                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Chava's point was: 'If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places.'

                        The differences would surely have been down to where Chapman and Kelly were willing to be alone with their killer, which was not necessarily within his control, but he went with both locations and stayed there to perform extensive mutilations, despite the risk of being trapped in either place. Both victims may have had a false sense of security, in locations they imagined the Whitechapel Murderer would avoid like the plague.

                        Assuming Dutfields Yard was where Stride wanted to be, for whatever reason, the location could have been a risk too far for her killer. Anyone could have entered or left the club while he was performing his mutilations, and he may have had a narrow escape from Hanbury Street for the same reason. Not quite having the nerve to chance it again here, but smarting with frustration, he went looking for another opportunity and got his mojo back in Mitre Square.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X


                        And the thing that comes out of his murder scenes is that he could have easily been caught at any one of them although he has a something of a way out in Mitre Square & Buck's Row. Stride we know he is disturbed. But we don't know why he didn't go further with Nichols. And Nichols is the exception to the 'narrow passage/broader enclosed area' theory I have. This was not the landscape of Buck's Row. BTW I always wondered why he stopped short of the kind of mutilations that occurred to the other victims. And I think I have the answer: Polly Nichols was wearing stays. The other's weren't. I wonder if he asked before he went any further with them...

                        Comment


                        • Joseph Helson, Daily News 4 Oct
                          "All the wounds could be seen while the stays were on the body, and could, in the witness's opinion, have been inflicted without the removal of that garment"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chava View Post

                            And the thing that comes out of his murder scenes is that he could have easily been caught at any one of them although he has a something of a way out in Mitre Square & Buck's Row. Stride we know he is disturbed. But we don't know why he didn't go further with Nichols. And Nichols is the exception to the 'narrow passage/broader enclosed area' theory I have. This was not the landscape of Buck's Row. BTW I always wondered why he stopped short of the kind of mutilations that occurred to the other victims. And I think I have the answer: Polly Nichols was wearing stays. The other's weren't. I wonder if he asked before he went any further with them...
                            For the better part of me, I want to say that there was something "uncharacteristic" about Brown's Stableyard - either it was recently locked or painted and kept closed that night [uncertain]. It would be in line with backyards and yards and squares; and, it may have been their actual destination that early morning.

                            ​​​​
                            there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                            Comment


                            • The difference between kellys place and any other location in terms of risk is night and day. Its the safest place by far.Hes in her place. theres privacy and theyre behind a locked door. if shes still alive before any attack no worries. once he kills her he dosnt have to answer unless someone tries to break in.
                              its why she was the most extensively mutilated.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                Joseph Helson, Daily News 4 Oct
                                "All the wounds could be seen while the stays were on the body, and could, in the witness's opinion, have been inflicted without the removal of that garment"
                                Well yes. That's my point. Nichol's wounds were accomplished while the stays were on the body. But Chapman's wounds could not have been. Or Eddowes. Stays were hard to cut through. They were padded & reinforced with whalebone. None of the other victims wore stays at the time of their death. Those stays may have been the last vestige of any kind of respectability left to poor Polly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X