Tweet
Is the proposition that all of the victims were killed elsewhere or is it just Eddowes that’s being suggested? I’m assuming that Stride is being discounted as a victim (I have no issue with that by the way as I don’t believe that it’s proven that she was - it doesn’t mean that she wasn’t though of course) And Kelly of course had to have been killed where she was found.
Either way the problem is surely a sizeable one…the risk of being seen carrying a body around in streets where Constable’s were on patrol. For example, where in Hanbury Street could the killer have exited some form of transport carrying a mutilated corpse unseen, then selected at random an open door, risking coming face to face with someone on his way to work? Recall, John Richardson said that the body wasn’t there at 4.45 when it was just getting light. So this meant that the killer would have had to have carried the corpse, whatever distance from transport to number 29, in broad daylight. This hardly seems likely.
In Mitre Square, if the killer used transport, then it’s unlikely that he could have driven this into the square itself as George Morris was sweeping with the door of Kearley and Tonge open so we would have to ask how he didn’t hear the echo of horses hooves in an otherwise silent square? If he had parked in Duke Street or Mitre Street this again gives us the problem and risk of carrying a mutilated corpse quite a few yards to its eventual location. And in neither of the above cases was there any blood drips found or evidence in situ which suggested that they hadn’t been killed where they were found.
There should be no issue with looking at new angles but I’ve never accepted this view that some have that there are some want to preserve some kind of status quo or that there is some expanse between two perceived ‘factions’ in ripperology. I think that it’s a case that some are perhaps more cautious than others. We have to respect the evidence whilst not treating all of it as holy writ. Witnesses can be honestly mistaken for example and we have to be cautious about accepting stated timings as being spot on and all perfectly synchronised.
On your question about any suspect with a link to Mitre Square - can only think of one and that was only a speculated link. Poster DJA (no longer a member) had a suspect Dr Henry Gawen Sutton who was a colleague of Gull’s. Dave (DJA) believed that he had a bolt-hole at 6 Mitre Street but I’m pretty sure that this was just a hunch on his part (someone might know differently of course)
You probably already knew this but at number 3 Mitre Square lived City Police Constable Richard Pearce.
Either way the problem is surely a sizeable one…the risk of being seen carrying a body around in streets where Constable’s were on patrol. For example, where in Hanbury Street could the killer have exited some form of transport carrying a mutilated corpse unseen, then selected at random an open door, risking coming face to face with someone on his way to work? Recall, John Richardson said that the body wasn’t there at 4.45 when it was just getting light. So this meant that the killer would have had to have carried the corpse, whatever distance from transport to number 29, in broad daylight. This hardly seems likely.
In Mitre Square, if the killer used transport, then it’s unlikely that he could have driven this into the square itself as George Morris was sweeping with the door of Kearley and Tonge open so we would have to ask how he didn’t hear the echo of horses hooves in an otherwise silent square? If he had parked in Duke Street or Mitre Street this again gives us the problem and risk of carrying a mutilated corpse quite a few yards to its eventual location. And in neither of the above cases was there any blood drips found or evidence in situ which suggested that they hadn’t been killed where they were found.
There should be no issue with looking at new angles but I’ve never accepted this view that some have that there are some want to preserve some kind of status quo or that there is some expanse between two perceived ‘factions’ in ripperology. I think that it’s a case that some are perhaps more cautious than others. We have to respect the evidence whilst not treating all of it as holy writ. Witnesses can be honestly mistaken for example and we have to be cautious about accepting stated timings as being spot on and all perfectly synchronised.
On your question about any suspect with a link to Mitre Square - can only think of one and that was only a speculated link. Poster DJA (no longer a member) had a suspect Dr Henry Gawen Sutton who was a colleague of Gull’s. Dave (DJA) believed that he had a bolt-hole at 6 Mitre Street but I’m pretty sure that this was just a hunch on his part (someone might know differently of course)
You probably already knew this but at number 3 Mitre Square lived City Police Constable Richard Pearce.
Comment