Mitre Square in all it gory glory.

[Supe]

GregBaron,

quit blowing smoke up my *##"

That I would never say. Not that I don't utter vulgarities--I certainly do when provoked, but never that particular one.

As for obfuscate and confusion, the former means to dim or make less clear, so i was suggesting Phil was trying to make his own confusion less obvious.

In any case, that was then and this is now and Phil's latest contribution was interesting. It would seem at one time in the early 1880s Mitre Square was a thriving residential community.

Don.

[GregBaron]

Words of Wisdom....

Excellent Mr. Supe or Don,

Now please help obfuscate my confusion. What does a bristling 1881 Mitre Square have do with the events of 1888 Mitre Square?


Greg

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Strangely though, I cannot find any person living in Mitre Square in 1891 nor 1901. Was it empty by then of residents one wonders?
And although the name is a relatively common one, I notice the entry in 1881 includes one Hyam Isaacs, at No.2 Mitre Square.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

GregBaron,

What does a bristling 1881 Mitre Square have do with the events of 1888 Mitre Square?

LOL. I never said it did; you'll have to ask Phil that. i said it was "interesting," which it is, irrespective of whether it brings us any more forward on what happened in September 1888.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

My actual train of thought had something to do with my discovery on posting No. 23... trying to see whether any policemen were living in Mitre Square from 1881 onwards, likewise 1891 and 1901, with a mind to being perhaps under the jurisdiction cited in that posting... just researching possibilities..

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

There is a long thread about John Kelly elsewhere, and was clearly shown, mostly by Simon Wood on a fascinating issue directly with Kelly's testimony, for Kelly to have lied. However, for my own part, the lodging house attendant, Wilkinson, in his testimony, tells us about Kelly coming back to the lodging house at between 7.30 p.m and 8 o'clock and telling him, when paying for a single bed for the night, that he had heard that "Kate had been locked up". Totally impossible of course, as Eddowes had yet to even be arrested.
This has been explained by some as Wilkinson getting the time wrong. Yet the rest of his fairly long, questioned testimony is well detailed and nobody today questions any of his statements to be false..except this one...where "he got the time wrong".

But back to the inquest. Nobody at the inquest questioned Wilkinson about the obvious fact of how Kelly could know that Kate had been locked up BEFORE she was arrested. (It turns out that Kelly heard this from a woman, who he does not name, but who recognises Kate Eddowes well enough for her to identify Kate to Kelly, and further, knew Kelly well enough to tell him- yet her name is not mentioned by Kelly, Kelly's statement is not followed up by the police and the woman is not tracked down by the police to corroberate Kelly's remarkable statement of knowing Kate had been locked up in a police station a way away from Flower and Dean Street, Whitechapel. )
Where was Kelly when this old woman told him? If Wilkinson DID get the time wrong in QUOTING Kelly, then he must have got the time wrong himself about Kelly coming back to the lodging house between 7.30 and 8, which puts Kelly's movements that evening into question, before he apparently went to bed at 10 o'clock. And THAT brings into question his unsubstantiated explanation of the woman that told him about Kate, whom he must have known, to be known by her.
No danger, no game. Just breaking down testimony.

This locking up of Eddowes Kelly had heard. Are you and Simon making the assumption the woman telling Kelly this story was being truthful...or actually referring to Eddowes arrest in Aldgate?

Just breaking down assumption

Echo... No, it is not proven, but entirely feasable. It is taken from Watkin's words about his beat, the lay-out of the Square in 1888, the vicinity in 2010, and the obvious enclosure of the Square in general in 1888, the structure of the buildings in 1888, the structure of the road and walls in 1888, and distances between the structures, which are elsewhere on Casebook. (Some of which you have invaluably contributed yourself- thank you!) It is also considered from the viewpoints of many people having worked with the structure of sound and soundwave movements in restricted areas, auditoriums (both indoors and outdoors), the adding and deleting of echo through and without the use of microphones for human voice, music and other variable sounds and the balancing and counter-balancing of sound when considering those structures the sound expands into. Namely-myself, and working with many sound technicians and many sound engineers for over 20 years) I am not, however, technically expert enough to produce any graph or paper on the subject.

The words I highlight are really all we need to read here. Various witnesses in and around the square all recall hearing nothing suspicious. Either we believe them or they are all liars. If the former fine, if the latter then we must question why? and question why logically. Is it reasonable to assume these witnesses were lying? I cannot think of one reasonable reason. And there lies the rub Phil. You raise unreasonable suspicion yet do not follow up this suspicion with logical and reasonable conclusion.

Watkins testimony ( The Ultimate, page 245)..- "Witness remained at the side of the body until Police-constable Holland arrived. No-one was there with witness until Holland arrived, and he was followed by Dr. Sequeira."
Watkins does not mention Harvey at all. Harvey, as you correctly state, does mention that he was with Holland.

Morris verifies Harveys recall. Two men confirm that Morris were accompanied by two Constables to Mitre Square. Watkins, at inquest, is recalling the course of events as he remembers or noted them in his notebook.

Whistle:- Watkins says the whistle was blown by Morris as he went up the street, Morris himself says he blew it immediately after viewing the body (in the Square). Therefore, contradiction. This has a bearing on the sounds eminating around in Mitre Square, and who would sleep through them. He wouldn't blow the whistle quietly, would he now?

Contradiction? Where?

Your quote:- "This has been debated elsewhere here. Yes, Private individuals confuses me. As for other constables, these arrived from the station for, as Scott states, the security of the Square."

"Private individuals and other constables" is a statement given in the same sentence, and I do not believe it does refer to the business Scott referred to, namely the later time of sealing off of the square because of gathering crowds. I believe this was at an earlier juncture?

Yes, I am aware of that. I am referring to the fact other Constables were required to secure the scene.

Mitre Street/Mitre Square:- My apologies. I mis-wrote the correct address. You are correct. That means he (Pearse) was the only tenant. However, if one looks at those people living with any physical overview of the Square, the Clapp household should have been awoken and summoned for their testimony. No one did it. This is the immediate vicinity of a ghastly murder. The occupant(s) of Clapp's house could have harboured a killer or been the killer themselves for all the police knew. That brings into question the police methods. In any crime, let's take for example burglary, a policeman will immediately question the neighbours to ask if they saw or heard anything. That is normal procedure. But they didnt do it for a brutal and ghastly murder of a woman with half her insides displayed to the night air and the pavement!

The Clapps should have been whatnow? Immediately summons to testify they heard nothing?

Back in 2007, a friend of mine had a double murder occur a few doors away from them. Whilst they were aware something had taken place (Police sirens today are far louder and were awoken at 2am) they were not spoken to until, guess what, 5am. The Polices immediate procedure, quite rightly, is to secure the scene. That is normal procedure.

This is what I mean by viewing an 1888 crime with the eyes of 2010.

Pearse (spelling):- taken from The Ultimate, page 258. However I bow to your reknowned knowledge on City Policemen.

Pearce (spelling) :- taken from the 2nd page of his appilcation form completed by the man himself on 19th March 1873.

The Ultimate spelling of Pearce as Pearse is due to the fact that passage is transcribe. It must be pointed out this error therefore lies with The Times of 12th October 1888 and NOT with the authors. Its fairly clear Phil.

Halse:- Marriot and Outram's statements are where?

Most likely destroyed during the blitz, possibily lost or destroyed by other means.

Access to the square:- No direct access, no, but that doesn't stop the possibility that someone went from the square back to Mitre Street and went into a house that overlooks and backs onto the square, does it?

No, obviously. However Watkins states he saw NO ONE in Mitre Street as he patrolled at a steady 2 and half mph around the time you are suggesting, ie, imediately after the murder.

As regards the scenario not being sinister nor unusual. I disagree. That is your opinion. But I have to say, not unusual? Well.. I disagree a lot there! (obviously)

Obviously.

Over-dramatic:- Well Neil, to some, and I am by far the only one, it does stink of many things. Like I said. Contrary testimony, poor police methodology in questioning the immediate vicinity, statements(Kelly) that are not backed up with corroberation nor investigated thereon, a statement that confuses without explanation (private individuals) and therin raises serious questions as to WHOM exactly was in that Square, plus much more. We haven't even talked of the time frame for how this killer removed the organs he did remove in near total darkness (if you see little light there), the Sequiera/Brown/Doctor testimonies and a whole bunch more.

All the above have reasonable explanations and should be viewed open mindedly.

Contradiction happens in ALL cases as people are recalling their version of events, this is a daily matter, It has happened to you today.

Police Methodology was as it was in 1888. To state its poor shows a lack of understanding of the period and Policing of that time. Statements were acted upon and corroberated (though the attempt to prove Kelly was lying is questionable, as it WAS proved he WAS in the lodging house at the time of the murder....unless Wilkinson is now lying).

You are trying to get a complete picture of a situation whose records are incomplete. An inquest is called to establish the facts and course of events. This is reliant on witness statements however, as proven, witness statements can be erronous. Infact they most often are.

Therefore should sinister shenannigans be only logical conclusion? Not at all.

I have no issue with speculation. I do have an issue with speculation being passed as cold hard fact.

It misleads. Something I find abhorent

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

Thank you for your reply. I will deal with this Kelly problem in this posting, as it is fairly long to show the point. You said..

"This locking up of Eddowes Kelly had heard. Are you and Simon making the assumption the woman telling Kelly this story was being truthful...or actually referring to Eddowes arrest in Aldgate?

Just breaking down assumption"

If you have read Simon Wood's well researched piece on Kelly, you will see it is not assumption at all. However, I will speak only for myself and my written words here.

The point I raise, Neil, is IF Wilkinson, the Lodging House gentleman, is to be believed, when quoting Kelly, then "getting the time wrong" on such an important piece of testimony should have been jumped on at the time, i.e. at the inquest. It wasn't. Today, we look at that testimony, and some are content with suggesting "he got the time wrong".

So ok.. what if that time, that he "got wrong" was indeed mis-testified? What if he meant to say an hour later? Not 7.30-8 but 8.30-9. Then Kelly, whom Wilkinson quotes, would still not know about Eddowes and be back in Flower and Dean Street in time to tell Wilkinson.

So, as we are talking in terms of inquest testimony, Wilkinson must therefore have "got the time wrong" by at least 1h and a half, considering how much time it would take for someone to either get the message to Kelly nearby, and then for him to travel back to the lodging house, or, for someone to travel nearer to wherever Kelly was and then for him to turn up at the lodging house to give the info to Wilkinson.

Now Wilkinson then goes on to testify that Kelly was in bed at 10. I'm sorry, but if a witness is so far out with his time about Kelly once, how can one have the same amount of belief in his next statement, about the same man, in the same place, having gone to bed at the time he stated? It raises doubts. That is logical, and reasonable. However, on it's own, it could be overlooked....but...

Put that together with the fact that the police didn't pick up on the time Wilkinson gave, didn't follow up on it and didn't ascertain where Kelly was because of Wilkinson's comment, then the focus on Kelly is missed. And it is here that Kelly's own words come in. A woman told him that Kate had been locked up. Kelly does not give her name. He does not say where he heard this news. That woman MUST have known Eddowes, to recognise her, in order for the woman to tell Kelly. She MUST have known Kelly as well, in order to tell exactly him that Eddowes had been locked up. Therefore she must have known them both, and Kelly must have known her. Yet the police did not chase the woman down, didn't corroberate Kelly's explanation, this woman is an important witness to both Eddowes movements and to Kelly's. She also corroberates Wilkinson's words, and would have confirmed the time of the message or corrected it, and therefore got the time that Kelly came in to the lodging house correct. .

Now, if Kelly makes an unsubstantiated comment to Wilkinson, (who is repeating his words), then we must consider the possibility that either Wilkinson or Kelly wasn't telling the truth. Look at Wilkinson's further statements, and another gaping hole went unnoticed by the police and the coroner, and the inquest jury.

On the inquest reports, kept filed at the Corporation of London Records Office are the written statements, as shown in The Ultimate Sourcebook, page 223,here, Wilkinson said..

"...I am quite positive he never went out on Saturday night.... No stranger came in between 1 and 2 on Sunday morning to take a bed. I cannot recollect whether any stranger came in at 3 o'clock."

He is then recalled, later, and says...
"Kelly was at No.52 sleeping on Friday and Saturday-I had 6 strangers sleeping there on Saturday evening. I do not remember anyone coming in about 2 o'clock on Sunday morning-I remember the police coming in about 3 o'clock- no register of the time or of the persons is kept by me."

The Times reported the inquest details as well, as shown on page 243 of The Ultimate Sourcebook. Here, it states under Wilkinson's testimony..

"...Kelly went to bed at 10 o'clock on Saturday night, and witness was quite positive he did not go out again...."

asked by Mr. Crawford.. Can you tell me who entered your lodging house- house on Sunday morning between 1 and 2?
Witness:- Two detectives came and asked if I had any female out.

asked by Mr. Crawford.. Did anyone come in before that, between 1 and 2, whom you did not recognize, and take a bed?
Witness:- I cannot remember. I refer to my book and tell you whether any stranger was there.

He was then asked to obtain the book from the lodging house, and his testimony was ajourned. Upon his re-arrival, he was again re-called, referring to his book said...

...that Kelly slept at the lodging house on Friday and Saturday night.. "No.52, single." Witness could not say at what time any stranger entered the place. He found there were six strangers there on Sunday morning. He could not tell whther any of those men came in about 2 o'clock on Sunday morning, nor could he remember anyone going out soon after 12 o'clock, as that was a very busy time. He took money and allotted the beds. Nothing excited his suspicion between the hours of 12am and 2. He recollected the police calling at 3 o'clock on Sunday morning.

By a juryman:- It was usual for the place to be open at 2 o'clock in the morning. They generally closed at 2.30 or 3. He had no means of remembering any person coming in. He would recognise a regular customer. He did not book the times they came in.

By Mr. Crawford.- There was no register kept of the names of those sleeping there.

By the jury:- We take the money of those who come. No questions are asked, and they are shown their beds. I dare say I have over 100 sleeping there now of a night. "

Now this should be obvious. There are descrepancies between his written and verbal testimony, he is not excited by anything between one and two, yet that is when two detectives turn up asking if a woman is missing that shouild be there. He also states it was at 3 oclock when the police turned up.

Most importantly, he says that he had no means of remembering any person coming in, and says that between 12 and 2 it was a very busy time and he could not remember anybody going out. Over 100 sleeping there now of a night, he states.

Neil, if he cannot remember anybody going out between 12 and 2, and it was a very busy time, and that he had no means of remembering any person coming in.....

How can he be certain that Kelly didn't go out (as he testified) and didnt come back in between 12 and 2?

That means that Kelly, in an uncorroberated statement, which is factually impossible, repeated by Wilkinson at an inquest, isn't asked to show his whereabouts at that time, can have gone out again and come back without being remembered. That makes Kelly's movements and statements of his whole evening important and crucial.

You can put this down to policing in 1888 if you wish. Whatever way you look at it, it is poor. And it could have let Kate Eddowes' killer go free. You don't know that, I don't know that. But this testimony shows reason to question the statements of both Kelly and Wilkinson.

It is reasonable and logical to question this. I do not happen to agree with those who say the Police did the best they could in 1888. Asking questions of witnesses hasn't a time period attached to when it was done. Sherlock Holmes, was written of as a person who noticed things, often at the expense of the Police he helped. It wasn't unknown to look at details. That was not done here, I believe. Details catch criminals.

Richard Nunn believes the police made mistakes about Eddowes. I agree. Bad ones.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

If Morris blew that whistle whilst still inside Mitre Square like he said "immediately" after seeing the body, the noise would have been far greater than if he did it in the street, not the square, as Watkins said. That means that a serving police officer, with his bedroom backing onto the square, only yards away, asleep, didn't hear the shrill of a police whistle, which could be explained quite reasonably if it was blown "in the street". In the square, he would have been able to hear it far more clearly. That is my point. It isn't a murderer-catching point, but it is a fair one.

The Clapp house, because of the position of the accomodation could quite possibly be witnesses to a serious crime. The police don't know that..so why didnt they do their job? Yet no one knocks on Mr.Clapp's door to even ascertain they saw nothing? It doesn't matter whether they saw something or not! They should have been asked..straight away!

The Pearce/Pearse spellling wasn't to point out a mistake, I was just showing that this was what I used. Nothing else. I wasn't even suggesting a mistake by the authors Neil! I just stated that was where I got it from.

Yes, I know you are open minded. That is why I appreciate your replies. However saying thats how it was, so be it... I go one step further, and do not just accept what we have been told as the be all and end all. I have shown this in the previous post that a reasonable and logical method of looking at statements, open-mindedly, can also produce questionable testimony to be shown that can, now and again, be very important.

I have no issue with you of all people. I happen to admire your research. But even if you don't believe the police made glaring errors, the police could not have covered up their mistakes (as Richard Nunn, and others, believe), or that the Met Police/City Police were as honest as a lamb. (There have been bent coppers down the ages for a wide variety of reasons, from collusion to individual weakness) Special Branch notwithstanding. If ever those SB ledgers do get to see the light of day, I think there is a fair chance that some of the anomelies in the WM will then be explained).... Then all should be looked at even if it does mean that the wonderful face of Ye Olde Bobby and his gang is shown to be blackened.

Time for bed, said Zebadee. Boing!

best wishes

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Fascinating thread.
The apparent activity in the square, and the lack of awareness by certain residents is to say the least puzzling.
Question.. What would you say the police reaction would be , if infact a met police officer had either on his own inititiive, or upon instructions, had followed Eddowes from Bishopsgate station, and lost his target en route to Mitre Square, and as a result of that action resulted in the death of Kate.
Considering the pressure on the police throughout London irrespective, of what division, whould not a blanket of silence be likely?
The city PC when 'Confronted' at the seaside home, could well have been such an individual[ pure speculation] such an action would have surely preyed on the officers mind, and he could have had a breakdown.
It surely is a major coincidence, that at precisely the same time as Lawande, and associates, saw the couple in church passage, the night watchman Bleinkensop was approached by a man anxious to find a man and woman?
Regards Richard.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Richard,

In that scenario, I agree the pressure could well cause a blanket of silence. The Bleinkinsop mystery is indeed an important co-incidence, I agree. And puzzling, not least.

For those who have not seen Simon Woods fascinating written piece, with his permission on another thread I repeated it. It is here in post 114.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4285&page=12

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hello Neil,

Thank you for your reply. I will deal with this Kelly problem in this posting, as it is fairly long to show the point. You said..

"This locking up of Eddowes Kelly had heard. Are you and Simon making the assumption the woman telling Kelly this story was being truthful...or actually referring to Eddowes arrest in Aldgate?

Just breaking down assumption"

If you have read Simon Wood's well researched piece on Kelly, you will see it is not assumption at all. However, I will speak only for myself and my written words here.

The point I raise, Neil, is IF Wilkinson, the Lodging House gentleman, is to be believed, when quoting Kelly, then "getting the time wrong" on such an important piece of testimony should have been jumped on at the time, i.e. at the inquest. It wasn't. Today, we look at that testimony, and some are content with suggesting "he got the time wrong".

So ok.. what if that time, that he "got wrong" was indeed mis-testified? What if he meant to say an hour later? Not 7.30-8 but 8.30-9. Then Kelly, whom Wilkinson quotes, would still not know about Eddowes and be back in Flower and Dean Street in time to tell Wilkinson.

So, as we are talking in terms of inquest testimony, Wilkinson must therefore have "got the time wrong" by at least 1h and a half, considering how much time it would take for someone to either get the message to Kelly nearby, and then for him to travel back to the lodging house, or, for someone to travel nearer to wherever Kelly was and then for him to turn up at the lodging house to give the info to Wilkinson.

Now Wilkinson then goes on to testify that Kelly was in bed at 10. I'm sorry, but if a witness is so far out with his time about Kelly once, how can one have the same amount of belief in his next statement, about the same man, in the same place, having gone to bed at the time he stated? It raises doubts. That is logical, and reasonable. However, on it's own, it could be overlooked....but...

Put that together with the fact that the police didn't pick up on the time Wilkinson gave, didn't follow up on it and didn't ascertain where Kelly was because of Wilkinson's comment, then the focus on Kelly is missed. And it is here that Kelly's own words come in. A woman told him that Kate had been locked up. Kelly does not give her name. He does not say where he heard this news. That woman MUST have known Eddowes, to recognise her, in order for the woman to tell Kelly. She MUST have known Kelly as well, in order to tell exactly him that Eddowes had been locked up. Therefore she must have known them both, and Kelly must have known her. Yet the police did not chase the woman down, didn't corroberate Kelly's explanation, this woman is an important witness to both Eddowes movements and to Kelly's. She also corroberates Wilkinson's words, and would have confirmed the time of the message or corrected it, and therefore got the time that Kelly came in to the lodging house correct. .

Now, if Kelly makes an unsubstantiated comment to Wilkinson, (who is repeating his words), then we must consider the possibility that either Wilkinson or Kelly wasn't telling the truth. Look at Wilkinson's further statements, and another gaping hole went unnoticed by the police and the coroner, and the inquest jury.

On the inquest reports, kept filed at the Corporation of London Records Office are the written statements, as shown in The Ultimate Sourcebook, page 223,here, Wilkinson said..

"...I am quite positive he never went out on Saturday night.... No stranger came in between 1 and 2 on Sunday morning to take a bed. I cannot recollect whether any stranger came in at 3 o'clock."

He is then recalled, later, and says...
"Kelly was at No.52 sleeping on Friday and Saturday-I had 6 strangers sleeping there on Saturday evening. I do not remember anyone coming in about 2 o'clock on Sunday morning-I remember the police coming in about 3 o'clock- no register of the time or of the persons is kept by me."

The Times reported the inquest details as well, as shown on page 243 of The Ultimate Sourcebook. Here, it states under Wilkinson's testimony..

"...Kelly went to bed at 10 o'clock on Saturday night, and witness was quite positive he did not go out again...."

asked by Mr. Crawford.. Can you tell me who entered your lodging house- house on Sunday morning between 1 and 2?
Witness:- Two detectives came and asked if I had any female out.

asked by Mr. Crawford.. Did anyone come in before that, between 1 and 2, whom you did not recognize, and take a bed?
Witness:- I cannot remember. I refer to my book and tell you whether any stranger was there.

He was then asked to obtain the book from the lodging house, and his testimony was ajourned. Upon his re-arrival, he was again re-called, referring to his book said...

...that Kelly slept at the lodging house on Friday and Saturday night.. "No.52, single." Witness could not say at what time any stranger entered the place. He found there were six strangers there on Sunday morning. He could not tell whther any of those men came in about 2 o'clock on Sunday morning, nor could he remember anyone going out soon after 12 o'clock, as that was a very busy time. He took money and allotted the beds. Nothing excited his suspicion between the hours of 12am and 2. He recollected the police calling at 3 o'clock on Sunday morning.

By a juryman:- It was usual for the place to be open at 2 o'clock in the morning. They generally closed at 2.30 or 3. He had no means of remembering any person coming in. He would recognise a regular customer. He did not book the times they came in.

By Mr. Crawford.- There was no register kept of the names of those sleeping there.

By the jury:- We take the money of those who come. No questions are asked, and they are shown their beds. I dare say I have over 100 sleeping there now of a night. "

Now this should be obvious. There are descrepancies between his written and verbal testimony, he is not excited by anything between one and two, yet that is when two detectives turn up asking if a woman is missing that shouild be there. He also states it was at 3 oclock when the police turned up.

Most importantly, he says that he had no means of remembering any person coming in, and says that between 12 and 2 it was a very busy time and he could not remember anybody going out. Over 100 sleeping there now of a night, he states.

Neil, if he cannot remember anybody going out between 12 and 2, and it was a very busy time, and that he had no means of remembering any person coming in.....

How can he be certain that Kelly didn't go out (as he testified) and didnt come back in between 12 and 2?

That means that Kelly, in an uncorroberated statement, which is factually impossible, repeated by Wilkinson at an inquest, isn't asked to show his whereabouts at that time, can have gone out again and come back without being remembered. That makes Kelly's movements and statements of his whole evening important and crucial.

You can put this down to policing in 1888 if you wish. Whatever way you look at it, it is poor. And it could have let Kate Eddowes' killer go free. You don't know that, I don't know that. But this testimony shows reason to question the statements of both Kelly and Wilkinson.

It is reasonable and logical to question this. I do not happen to agree with those who say the Police did the best they could in 1888. Asking questions of witnesses hasn't a time period attached to when it was done. Sherlock Holmes, was written of as a person who noticed things, often at the expense of the Police he helped. It wasn't unknown to look at details. That was not done here, I believe. Details catch criminals.

Richard Nunn believes the police made mistakes about Eddowes. I agree. Bad ones.

best wishes

Phil

I am indeed familiar with Simons piece.

Beautifully explained Phil, however none of the above proves or disproves that Kelly, the woman or Wilkinson was lying. Which is what you said earlier.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Neil,

If Morris blew that whistle whilst still inside Mitre Square like he said "immediately" after seeing the body, the noise would have been far greater than if he did it in the street, not the square, as Watkins said. That means that a serving police officer, with his bedroom backing onto the square, only yards away, asleep, didn't hear the shrill of a police whistle, which could be explained quite reasonably if it was blown "in the street". In the square, he would have been able to hear it far more clearly. That is my point. It isn't a murderer-catching point, but it is a fair one.

The Clapp house, because of the position of the accomodation could quite possibly be witnesses to a serious crime. The police don't know that..so why didnt they do their job? Yet no one knocks on Mr.Clapp's door to even ascertain they saw nothing? It doesn't matter whether they saw something or not! They should have been asked..straight away!

The Pearce/Pearse spellling wasn't to point out a mistake, I was just showing that this was what I used. Nothing else. I wasn't even suggesting a mistake by the authors Neil! I just stated that was where I got it from.

Yes, I know you are open minded. That is why I appreciate your replies. However saying thats how it was, so be it... I go one step further, and do not just accept what we have been told as the be all and end all. I have shown this in the previous post that a reasonable and logical method of looking at statements, open-mindedly, can also produce questionable testimony to be shown that can, now and again, be very important.

I have no issue with you of all people. I happen to admire your research. But even if you don't believe the police made glaring errors, the police could not have covered up their mistakes (as Richard Nunn, and others, believe), or that the Met Police/City Police were as honest as a lamb. (There have been bent coppers down the ages for a wide variety of reasons, from collusion to individual weakness) Special Branch notwithstanding. If ever those SB ledgers do get to see the light of day, I think there is a fair chance that some of the anomelies in the WM will then be explained).... Then all should be looked at even if it does mean that the wonderful face of Ye Olde Bobby and his gang is shown to be blackened.

Time for bed, said Zebadee. Boing!

best wishes

Phil

However you have no evidence contradicting Clapp or Pearce who state they heard nothing. You are basing this on you assumption of the square and the situation of the individual. We have NO other testimony stating that a whistle was heard in either the Square nor street, apart from Harvey in Aldgate. Nothing from Lowson or any other person saying 'yeah, I heard a whistle'.

Clapp didnt just turn up at the inquest. He was spoken to as per procedure. As I said, the Police secured the scene. Not only had they an investigation to conduct be they also had to Police the area. They would have no idea what looked over the square, how the land laid until daylight. Priorities were made and house to house was made at daybreak, which is logical to assume thats when the Clapps were woken due to the time they state they heard about the murder. Its a practice which still stands today.

They were asked, straight away or not, it makes no difference.

There was no need to point out the source of the Pearce spelling error as it is a common one, even made at inquest. I was merely covering your ass because if I interpreted that you were shifting the blame, someone else may have also.

Just accept? You make it sound like I merely accepted what is taken. This is untrue. There seems to be yet another assumption that the path you take is new in Ripperology. It is not. Others have walked it, as I have. Yet it is imperitive that an understanding of the area in 1888 plus the Policing aspect is made. If not the tendancey is to slip into how we view from a modern standpoint. This is grossly unfair and leads to the wrong conclusions or opinions.

There is reason, true, however there are certain phrases where you cross a line from 'I think' to 'this must have been'. All testimony is questionable, doubt can be raised against it. Your beilf the square would have certainly produce an echo audible to the Pearces and Clapps is questionable. No one else in the Square, overlooking the Square or in Mitre Street confirms your theory it must have been heard. Your conclusion is suspicion, mine is it wasnt heard.

And thats the difference between us.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I am having a little trouble reconciling the known statements re P.C.Watkins and the following:-

Evening News October 1st 1888

"Mr. Foster, the superintendent of the City Police, upon being called upon last night by a representative of the Press, expressed his willingness to afford any information it would be safe to publish....
....He stated the Police-constable Watkins, No. 881....He blew his whistle, and in a few seconds other offers (?officers) came running up, and medical aid was summoned, but the woman was, of course quite dead."

Foster states that Watkins blew his whistle.

Would someone care to explain this statement?

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

There is no direct quote of Foster here. We have a reporter writing what he apparently hears from another reporter who was supposed to have interviewed Foster; who got his information second hand. Morris, who did blow a whistle - according to formal testimony - is not even mentioned in this report...A someone told me that someone told him that someone told him... and it got garbled in the process. Not the first time a reporter could have been in error.

Earlier, in that same paper, Morris is mentioned and they got his name wrong then (Norris).

[The Good Michael]

Hunter,

How dare you try and let facts get in the way of a good story!

Mike... in disbelief