Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suppose a City PC did see something near Mitre Square

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
    This topic has always been good for an endless stream of fanciful speculation.

    It seems that the simplest answers are always the hardest to accept. And we have seen this discussion revived many times over the years. But there are the usual caveats to bear in mind.

    1. From the official records it is obvious that there was no unknown 'City PC' witness on the night of the Mitre Square murder.

    2. The Stephen White press story (as to seeing a suspect leave a murder scene) is almost certainly apocryphal.

    3. This is a careless recycling of various second-hand stories over the years with no official record to support it.
    The simplest answers are never the most exciting it is what it is a story
    Last edited by pinkmoon; 09-02-2013, 12:08 AM.
    Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

    Comment


    • #62
      An enticing half remembered rumour will be half way around the world before the truth has put its size elevens on.

      Comment


      • #63
        It's not a 'half-remembered rumor'.

        Macnaghaten had written a second version of his 'Report' in which a PC sees maybe 'Kosminski' with Eddowes. Major Griffiths utilized this in his account in 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' (1898).

        It certainly beefed up that suspect; that he might have been seen with a victim. And it placed this suspect, by implication, inside the 1888 police investigation (as opposed to only being learned about after he was sectioned over two years later).

        And then the toothpaste was somewhat awkwardly squeezed back into the tube.

        In 1907, Sims writes that the policeman saw a figure who might have been the Polish suspect leaving the scene of the crime, rather than speaking to the victim. Later the Bobbie looked again at this suspect (wow!) and thought there was some features of outline which matched but nothing stronger.

        By 1914, Macnaghten totally downgrades the cop sighting--who is reportedly the only significant witness--as maybe, possibly, probably not seeing Jack; it was unsatisfying.

        Take that, Anderson!

        Comment


        • #64
          other direction

          Hello Damaso.

          "Watkins approached the square from the north, right?"

          Not if he came in through Mitre st, as he said.

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #65
            dismissal

            Hello Stewart. Had Watkins seen someone exit Mitre sq, and had not testified to that effect at inquest, would that not have been grounds for immediate dismissal?

            But he was not dismissed. Therefore, it seems that he did not come forward with a sighting after the fact.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #66
              Jonathan
              So, it was a lie deliberately propagated by Macnaghten to throw people off the scent to protect the continued innocence of young Montague, as the Druitts were essential to the maintenance of the Conservative regime.
              And others - including experienced policemen -merely unwittingly repeated Macnaghten's crafty lie?
              That is your suggestion isn't it?

              Comment


              • #67
                No, not at all.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                  Hello Damaso.

                  "Watkins approached the square from the north, right?"

                  Not if he came in through Mitre st, as he said.

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  If you had just committed a murder in Mitre Square and were carrying organs, would you flee south, towards presumably the busiest street?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                    Hello Stewart. Had Watkins seen someone exit Mitre sq, and had not testified to that effect at inquest, would that not have been grounds for immediate dismissal?

                    But he was not dismissed. Therefore, it seems that he did not come forward with a sighting after the fact.

                    Cheers.
                    LC
                    Well that's the question I started this thread with. Today, it would not be out of the ordinary for the police to withhold evidence from the public for some strategic reason.

                    In 1888, would it be plausible for Watkins's superiors to tell him NOT to discuss his sighting or tell the inquest?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Person doing this is obviously disturbed in the mind to what degree we will never know .We do have to keep this in mind when trying to make sense of the killers behaviour before and after murder
                      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        well known

                        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Recollections of Det. Insp. Robert Sagar, City of London Police.

                        As you know, the perpetrator of these outrages was never brought to justice, but I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body. He blew his whistle, and other officers running up, they set off in pursuit of the man who had just left. The officers were wearing indiarubber boots, and the retreating footsteps of a man could be clearly heard. The sounds were followed to King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but we did not see the man again that night.
                        Daily News, 9 Jan. 1905.
                        So here we have a person who is "well known" to the police who might possibly be a multiple murderer.If this story is true surely he would have been visited straight away by police certainly I think he would have been followed day and night by the police I think we can assume this is just another "story".
                        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          conundrum

                          Hello Damaso. Thanks.

                          "If you had just committed a murder in Mitre Square and were carrying organs, would you flee south, towards presumably the busiest street?"

                          Certainly not. For, besides the busy street, if I knew the lay out, I'd know that Watkins would soon be there.

                          But neither would I head through Church Passage and run bang into Harvey.

                          And, a fortiori, neither would I go through St. James and risk meeting Blenkingsop and the volunteer lads.

                          So . . . conundrum?

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            announced

                            Hello (again) Damaso. Thanks.

                            "In 1888, would it be plausible for Watkins's superiors to tell him NOT to discuss his sighting or tell the inquest?"

                            Well, this was done with part of Lawende's evidence. But it was duly announced, yes?

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Leaving aside my fatuous conspiracy

                              seriously, COULD it have been a well-known foreigner, but not Jewish? Thus the description?
                              Well-known in terms of suspicious criminal activity or reprobate?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by crberger View Post
                                seriously, COULD it have been a well-known foreigner, but not Jewish? Thus the description?
                                Well-known in terms of suspicious criminal activity or reprobate?
                                Foriegn, Jewish, Mexican, Alaskan ,Albanian,Indian,African what ever nationality if this person was known to the police and a suspect in such a high profile case like this he would have been visited by the police straight away
                                Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X