Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That would mean you favour a single unsubstantiated account to one that has 4 other independent.... (including Spooner).... witnesses giving the same approximate story and times. Always a fascination to me that people would do that. Youre certainly not alone with those beliefs either, many people take Israel and Louis as being more trustworthy than 4 other corroborating stories.

Again, fascinating that anyone would do that, let alone what is likely a majority of students. Based on what I see on Schwartz and Diemshutz threads. Its like climbing free hand a sheer 5000 ft wall, when steps could be taken to reduce the risks of error. Some people like the danger I guess.

You've completely misunderstood this, Michael.
I am not prioritizing Diemschitz (I assume his is the 'single unsubstantiated account' to which you refer) over other accounts.
What I am doing is to demonstrate (I hope) that once the order of arrival of PCs is determined (as best I can), then Spooner's testimony leads to a paradox - he must arrive at the yard both before and after Lamb & 426H, given his claims.
Furthermore, as Louis' testimony appears to corroborate Spooner's, it raises the possibility that the two men have colluded, to make their respective stories agree.
This could have interesting implications, particularly when considered with the other curiosities of Spooner's testimony.
You might have noticed that I've been referring to Spooner quite a bit lately, especially in the back-and-forths with Curious Cat.

To be clear though....4 people said they were with Louis and others, around a dying woman in the passageway at approx 12:40- to 12:45. Only a great leap of faith with both Louis and Israel is required to conclude otherwise.

The problem for you though, is that you aren't clear. You bang-on about these 4 people quite a bit, but how many people reading your posts actually know who these 4 are?
My advice to you is to spell out this claim at regular intervals - say once a month. Names, times, and supporting quotes...

[caz]

Here's where we differ. I think 29 Hanbury Street and 13 Millers Court are functionally the same. There's no way out of the backyard of #29 unless you go through the front door. It's fenced off. Yes, maybe a surprised killer could manage to climb a fence or two. But he's ultimately just as trapped as he would be in Miller's Court. Every witness description says the guy was short--around 5'5". He's shorter than the backyard fence. And, yes, he could have bulldozed through it. But that would have taken valuable time if someone--or many people--were after him. However (gets back on hobby horse) both are larger enclosed areas reached by narrow passageways. Like Mitre Square. Like Duffield's Yard... I still believe that's what triggers him. If a tart just takes him to a dark bit under a bridge I think she's safe. But those ladies including Mary Jane chose very similar locations.

I agree with this, Chava, but for me it suggests it was typically the victim who dictated the location of her murder, with her killer simply grabbing the opportunity offered to be alone with her, and striking if he thought the risk was worth taking. I can't really see anyone going, against her instincts, to a location of a stranger's choosing, after the second ghastly murder in August, of a woman in similar circumstances. It's possible that Chapman, for example, chose that back yard in Hanbury Street, for the very reason that she believed it would be safe for her because no killer would take the risk.

I see very little difference between prospective victims who were weakened by poor health and nutrition, exhaustion and/or alcohol, making them vulnerable when open to suggestion - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - and vulnerable if resisting. I suspect Stride died because she angered her killer by refusing to leave the perceived safety of the club grounds, judging that if he meant her any harm he wouldn't risk it in that location. If so, she was only half right. He couldn't risk staying to mutilate her, but he could cut her throat for defying him, and to stop her voicing any suspicions and describing him, while he was looking for another victim.

I don't see why Kelly's killer had to know her personally, or to know about her room in Miller's Court, when he strolled down Commercial Street that night [if that's what he did] and wondered if opportunity would knock for him. If Kelly was already drunk when they encountered one another, or just looking for someone to ply her with drink, and she was "willing for a shilling" as the saying goes, in case the landlord demanded some back rent in the morning, her killer would have thought all his Christmases had come at once when she took him off laughing, and showed him where they could spend some time alone and undisturbed. And that could have been the case, whether he had ginger whiskers, a blotchy face and a can of ale to share with her, or was Hutchinson's 'Flash Harry', who looked like he was good for a few bob. For both Kelly and Jack, it would have been rude not to.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

There is a clear issue with the timing aspect of Spooner's testimony.
As Diemschitz testimony corroborates Spooner, on this point, it would appear there has been some sort of collusion between the two men.

That would mean you favour a single unsubstantiated account to one that has 4 other independent.... (including Spooner).... witnesses giving the same approximate story and times. Always a fascination to me that people would do that. Youre certainly not alone with those beliefs either, many people take Israel and Louis as being more trustworthy than 4 other corroborating stories.

Again, fascinating that anyone would do that, let alone what is likely a majority of students. Based on what I see on Schwartz and Diemshutz threads. Its like climbing free hand a sheer 5000 ft wall, when steps could be taken to reduce the risks of error. Some people like the danger I guess.

To be clear though....4 people said they were with Louis and others, around a dying woman in the passageway at approx 12:40- to 12:45. Only a great leap of faith with both Louis and Israel is required to conclude otherwise.

[Michael W Richards]

Another aspect running parallel to risk could have been opportunity. If, in fact, he did kill Annie deep into the morning, he may have rationalized that dawn would be breaking within an hour or so, and she provided him with the best opportunity for committing a murder on that particular date and time. Although he may have had the best laid plans for his lustmord [ie. organ harvesting], Annie may have been the only woman that night who provided a willing fateful encounter to accomplish those ends; and do, he was forced to mitigate the risk based on a fleeting opportunity.

But it also sets a precedence, a man unafraid to commit a ghastly murder in the backyard of an occupied homestead is not going to later suffer the coward's streak at, say, a men's club filled with jovial club members or a woman's apartment with only one entry.

Well put Robert, and the last paragraph is about where Im at with Profiling. I believe the killer known as Jack the Ripper revealed his blood lust on murders 1 and 2....virtually identical methodologies with increasing violence..within 2 weeks, the opportunistic killer who driven by mad urges kills strangers..women strangers, so he can open them up on the spot. You may well be right about why Annie on that particular night, which is why I make the comments I do about Mary Kellys killer. She was targeted, the murder location pre-established. Annie was there at the wrong time and picked the wrong guy.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is me, getting back to CC re the unaccounted for constable on Fairclough St.

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?

Here are the constables at Dutfield's Yard:

252H	Henry Lamb
426H	unknown
12HR	Albert Collins
452H	William Smith

This is Lamb, in the Times:

About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running towards me. I went towards them and heard them say, "Come on! There has been another murder." I said, "Where?" As they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down the street. Seeing people moving about some distance down Berner-street, I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H.

This sounds very much like 252H & 426H have run along Commercial Rd, and then down Berner St to #40.

Smith also reaches the yard by going down Berner St, from Commercial Rd.

[Tele] I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived.

Which two?

[Times] At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police." When I got there I saw constables 12 H R and 252 H.

So at this point (a little after 1am), all 4 PCs are at the yard - Smith having been the last to arrive.
Smith refers to seeing 12HR & 252H when he arrives, but Lamb has already accounted for 426H, and I think by 'saw', Smith means 'spoke with'.

So who's route to Dutfield's Yard have we not accounted for? Answer: 12HR Albert Collins

It must have been PC Collins that James Brown could see on the corner of Fairclough & Christian streets, and whose whistle was heard by both Mr Harris and Abraham Heshburg.

From the above we can state the arrival order of the 4 PCs:

Lamb & 426H > Collins > Smith

Now let's have another look at our friend 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.

Mr Harris heard Collins' whistle and came outside. Spooner meets Harris while on route to Berner St.
The arrival order dictates that, at this point, Lamb and 426H are already at the yard. What then, to make of this:

[Times] Edward Spooner said, - I live at 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper at Messrs. Meredith's. Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street. I saw a woman lying just inside the gate. At that time there were about 15 people in the yard, and they were all standing round the body. The majority of them appeared to be Jews. No one touched the body. One of them struck a match, and I lifted up the chin of the deceased with my hand. The chin was slightly warm. Blood was still flowing from the throat. I could see that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and a red and white flower pinned on to her jacket. The body was lying on one side, with the face turned towards the wall. I noticed that blood was running down the gutter. I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived. I did not notice any one leave while I was there, but there were a lot of people there, and a person might have got away unnoticed. The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard. I could not form any opinion about the body having been moved. Several persons stood around. I noticed that the legs of the deceased were drawn up, but the clothes were not disturbed. As soon as the policeman came I stepped back, and afterwards helped to fasten the gates. When I left it was by the front door of the club. Before that I was searched, and gave my name and address. I was also examined by Dr. Phillips.

To make clear who the policeman were:

[MA] As soon as Police-constable Lamb arrived I stepped back. I helped him to fasten the gate.

[Times re Diemschitz] By the candlelight he could see that there was blood. He did not touch the body, but at once went off for the police. He passed several streets without seeing a policeman, and returned without one, although he called out "Police" as loud as he could. A young man whom he had met in Grove-street and told about the murder, returned with him. This young man lifted the woman's head up, and witness for the first time saw that her throat was cut. At the same moment the last witness and the constables arrived.

So Louis did not find police during his search, but returned to the yard with Spooner, who observed the body.

Note this is said:
A young man whom he had met in Grove-street and told about the murder, returned with him.
Not this:
He met a young man and woman in Grove-street, told them about the murder, and the man returned with him.
There was no woman with Spooner. At least, not by that time.

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.

Not sure about 'had already gone', but it was Eagle and someone else who found Lamb:

Eagle: I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street. In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street. I told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street, and they returned with me.

There is a clear issue with the timing aspect of Spooner's testimony.
As Diemschitz testimony corroborates Spooner, on this point, it would appear there has been some sort of collusion between the two men.

[Robert St Devil]

He certainly only takes on women he's sure he can overpower. Three of those women were 5'-5'2". I've even seen PM stuff that suggested 'Long Liz' was only 5'2" although official accounts have her at 5'5". However she wasn't in great shape. All of them were ill and they were old by the standards of the time. Kelly is different. I think he only takes Kelly on because she's drunk as a lord. She was a big woman, 25 years old, 5'7" tall and I believe had been known to give a good account of herself in a fight. It fascinates me that he even goes near her. But a level of intoxication has to be one of the things he looks for if not the main factor in his decision. Every one of those women were seen drunk before they were killed.

In the post mortem of Elizabeth Stride, it was noted that her right leg was bowed forward this always led me to a suspicion that she may have limped or lagged as she walked iow I don't believe that she stepped naturally. The irony of her surname is not lost on me and I've fruitlessly speculated that she may have [also] been referred to as "Liz Long-Stride".

On aside, I agree that Mary Jane was a bigger woman.

[Robert St Devil]

I think the Hanbury Street murder was in an exceptionally poor location, and at a poor time, for the killer to be in. But the victims spontaneous choice there created that inopportune venue, the murderer in Millers Court had no other options either, but spontaneity was no factor there. He entered that court knowing its weakness for someone escaping from it. The man that killed Annie just followed along with the flow and decided at some point the risk was worth it. Which then left him vulnerable.

Another aspect running parallel to risk could have been opportunity. If, in fact, he did kill Annie deep into the morning, he may have rationalized that dawn would be breaking within an hour or so, and she provided him with the best opportunity for committing a murder on that particular date and time. Although he may have had the best laid plans for his lustmord [ie. organ harvesting], Annie may have been the only woman that night who provided a willing fateful encounter to accomplish those ends; and do, he was forced to mitigate the risk based on a fleeting opportunity.

But it also sets a precedence, a man unafraid to commit a ghastly murder in the backyard of an occupied homestead is not going to later suffer the coward's streak at, say, a men's club filled with jovial club members or a woman's apartment with only one entry.

[Michael W Richards]

I dont disagree in principle with most everything there Chava as far as choice of location, burt I think on Hanbury Street the killer didnt make that choice. Annie did. Mary was at home in her underwear when her killer came to her. You might see that as the victim again choosing the location, but I think the reality is that he went to Millers Court because that where the person he intended to kill was. The location in that case seems to established prior to the crime, rather than just wherever the opportunity took place in the East End.

I think the Hanbury Street murder was in an exceptionally poor location, and at a poor time, for the killer to be in. But the victims spontaneous choice there created that inopportune venue, the murderer in Millers Court had no other options either, but spontaneity was no factor there. He entered that court knowing its weakness for someone escaping from it. The man that killed Annie just followed along with the flow and decided at some point the risk was worth it. Which then left him vulnerable.

[Chava]

The issue with Mary is location Chava. Its inconceivable that he simply stumbled upon her, in her room, in a small courtyard with only 1 exit. Marys killer went to Millers Court to kill Mary...that what the evidence suggests. Do we see that kind of evidence with Polly or Annie....not saying it couldnt have been the case, just that its not within the known facts. They were almost certainly strangers to him. Was Mary a stranger to her killer....again, by the evidence, the circumstances say probably not.

And as for drunk....there is evidence that Kate slept herself straight enough to be released, and Liz had no alcohol in her system.

Here's where we differ. I think 29 Hanbury Street and 13 Millers Court are functionally the same. There's no way out of the backyard of #29 unless you go through the front door. It's fenced off. Yes, maybe a surprised killer could manage to climb a fence or two. But he's ultimately just as trapped as he would be in Miller's Court. Every witness description says the guy was short--around 5'5". He's shorter than the backyard fence. And, yes, he could have bulldozed through it. But that would have taken valuable time if someone--or many people--were after him. However (gets back on hobby horse) both are larger enclosed areas reached by narrow passageways. Like Mitre Square. Like Duffield's Yard... I still believe that's what triggers him. If a tart just takes him to a dark bit under a bridge I think she's safe. But those ladies including Mary Jane chose very similar locations.

[Michael W Richards]

He certainly only takes on women he's sure he can overpower. Three of those women were 5'-5'2". I've even seen PM stuff that suggested 'Long Liz' was only 5'2" although official accounts have her at 5'5". However she wasn't in great shape. All of them were ill and they were old by the standards of the time. Kelly is different. I think he only takes Kelly on because she's drunk as a lord. She was a big woman, 25 years old, 5'7" tall and I believe had been known to give a good account of herself in a fight. It fascinates me that he even goes near her. But a level of intoxication has to be one of the things he looks for if not the main factor in his decision. Every one of those women were seen drunk before they were killed.

The issue with Mary is location Chava. Its inconceivable that he simply stumbled upon her, in her room, in a small courtyard with only 1 exit. Marys killer went to Millers Court to kill Mary...that what the evidence suggests. Do we see that kind of evidence with Polly or Annie....not saying it couldnt have been the case, just that its not within the known facts. They were almost certainly strangers to him. Was Mary a stranger to her killer....again, by the evidence, the circumstances say probably not.

And as for drunk....there is evidence that Kate slept herself straight enough to be released, and Liz had no alcohol in her system.

[Chava]

I feel that a more productive pursuit here would be does the killer scope out potential victims? Its clear that this person knew the East End pretty well, so wherever he chose to act he could put together some egress plan, but if he wandered about searching for weak sheep out at night, that is relevant. In the case of Pollys killer and Annies killer we have evidence that suggests both were physically diminished, Polly was very inebriated, and Annie was ill. Does this suggest that he chose weaker targets to ensure his results? If those 2 are case studies, Id say we then have to assess whether the same kind of compromising state is evident in later murders.

Only Mary Kelly seems to fit that profile, but the fact that the location suggests he went there intentionally to find her seems to contradict random acquisition based on victims health/wellness status.

He certainly only takes on women he's sure he can overpower. Three of those women were 5'-5'2". I've even seen PM stuff that suggested 'Long Liz' was only 5'2" although official accounts have her at 5'5". However she wasn't in great shape. All of them were ill and they were old by the standards of the time. Kelly is different. I think he only takes Kelly on because she's drunk as a lord. She was a big woman, 25 years old, 5'7" tall and I believe had been known to give a good account of herself in a fight. It fascinates me that he even goes near her. But a level of intoxication has to be one of the things he looks for if not the main factor in his decision. Every one of those women were seen drunk before they were killed.

[Michael W Richards]

I feel that a more productive pursuit here would be does the killer scope out potential victims? Its clear that this person knew the East End pretty well, so wherever he chose to act he could put together some egress plan, but if he wandered about searching for weak sheep out at night, that is relevant. In the case of Pollys killer and Annies killer we have evidence that suggests both were physically diminished, Polly was very inebriated, and Annie was ill. Does this suggest that he chose weaker targets to ensure his results? If those 2 are case studies, Id say we then have to assess whether the same kind of compromising state is evident in later murders.

Only Mary Kelly seems to fit that profile, but the fact that the location suggests he went there intentionally to find her seems to contradict random acquisition based on victims health/wellness status.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

Once we bring in Brown's testimony, things get complicated - too complicated for just a balancing act...

If a policeman is on the corner of Fairclough & Christian street, and is called to the yard by a man, where is Spooner and lady friend at the time?
Same intersection, right?
So if the policeman is called (who then heads straight off to the yard), who does the calling?
Diemschitz, right?
Then how does Spooner get to the yard 5 minutes before any copper (as he tells us), and have a real close look at Stride, before helping PC Lamb close the gates?
So that can't be the case!
Maybe some other man calls the PC on the corner, and the 3 men - LD, IK & ES - are already (back, in the case of the first 2) at the yard.
That is, the man calling the PC is part of another, later search party.
That would mean Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky missed seeing a PC on their search, because the PC seen by Brown was not at the intersection (or indeed, anywhere along Fairclough St, East of Berner St) when they passed by on each occasion (Grove St and back).
Does that solve the mystery? No, and here's why...

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 the policeman must be there, to blow his whistle which Mr Harris has heard!
Furthermore, there can be little doubt about this blowing of the whistle. Evening Standard, Oct 1:

Abraham Heshburg, living at 28, Berner-street, said:- "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. ..."

So we would appear to have a major anomaly!
It could be that Spooner is making up part of his story - or should I say, another part of his story.
But wait - Diemschitz story about picking up a man (and not a PC), corroborates Spooner's story about stopping the "two Jews", and going to Berner St with them.
If that part of Spooner's story is false, then so is the corresponding part of Diemschitz story.
That would suggest their respective stories are coordinated.
That in turn would suggest a hitherto unrecognized relationship between Edward Spooner and Louis Diemschitz, and by extension the IWMEC.

As for who the PC on the corner actually was, - not sure. Will try to get back to you on that...

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.

As I said, let's think about Edward Spooner. Those questions are there to raise certain doubts about him.
They are not me trying to hand you a homework assignment, although I can see how it might come across like that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Who was that man? When did this occur? Where did it occur? Who told the police about it? How did they know it was the to-be murdered woman?

Curiouser and curiouser!

Same edition, re 'the Hungarian':

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Still think it occurred in Berner St, and after the public-houses had closed?

And who do you suppose the 'husband' of the 'wife' might have been? Michael Kidney?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do any of the police beat areas, intersect across murders?
This is, if all the relevant police beats were drawn on a map, would there be any intersection of the beats related to any one murder, with any another?
If 'no', did the Ripper only want to risk being seen in each area once, by police?
Also if 'no', did the Ripper stop because he ran out of areas?