Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape Route?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



    Did my word’s “He’s Brian” come up like this “Heâs Brianâ¦..“ on your screen Al?
    No, it's an occasional issue with VBullitin. Poor old Moste on the A6 thread has it something rotten.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

      No, it's an occasional issue with VBullitin. Poor old Moste on the A6 thread has it something rotten.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        And if the killer wanted to leave messages to be seen and connected to the murders, why didn't he write any at the Chapman or Kelly Murder sites?



        You're already excluding possibilities. It is quite possible that the apron piece was accidentally dropped by the killer or that it was deliberately discarded by the killer, with no intention of it ever being found.

        According to PC Long, he had heard of the Mitre Square murder and rumors that there had been another killing.

        "[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.
        [Coroner] Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.​"


        None of PC Long's statements seem suspicious in any way.
        Yes,can't dismiss Long because it is inconvenient for a theory.Long was describing what he came across,see or did not see, and not just hearing a story from somebody else.
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • FAO Jeff Hamm

          Don't know if this was missed or just not gone into but I'm still curious on this one after your simulation on the placement of PC Harvey...

          Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

          Thanks, that's very useful.

          PC Harvey would seem to have been well out of the way for all events until shortly before the killer left the scene and PC Watkins found the body. This of course also goes with Lawende and co. apparently seeing no policeman around when they left the club (at least there's mention of one).

          But this does make me wonder. If you take the simulation back further, is there a possibility of PC Harvey and Catherine Eddowes being close to passing each other along Houndsditch? Keeping the same walking speed for PC Harvey, and assuming Catherine took that route down towards Aldgate (maybe returning to the spot she was found drunk and arrested a few hours earlier?), would it be about 1:10am they may have passed each other on opposite sides of Houndsditch? Or would he have just missed her when going round the top of Duke Street and back out to Houndsditch again?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
            FAO Jeff Hamm

            Don't know if this was missed or just not gone into but I'm still curious on this one after your simulation on the placement of PC Harvey...
            Hi,

            Oh, I've not actually put it together, but 1:10 would be 18 minutes prior to the start of the current versions, and that would place PC Harvey around where he starts now (within a minute or so). He would be heading towards Houndsditch, so if Eddowes were coming down that way, it is possible he may have passed her. If she were alone, and just walking along, though, he may not have taken any particular notice and so failed to recognize her later at the crime scene.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              Hi,

              Oh, I've not actually put it together, but 1:10 would be 18 minutes prior to the start of the current versions, and that would place PC Harvey around where he starts now (within a minute or so). He would be heading towards Houndsditch, so if Eddowes were coming down that way, it is possible he may have passed her. If she were alone, and just walking along, though, he may not have taken any particular notice and so failed to recognize her later at the crime scene.

              - Jeff
              Thank you for working it out. It's such an intriguing prospect that PC Harvey may have already passed/encountered Catherine so shortly before her murder.

              ​​​​

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                And that is why Lawende's description of the man is such an important piece of evidence.
                As far as I'm concerned, these are two different matters. That there's a good chance that the couple was Eddowes & companion doesn't say anything about the accuracy of Lawende's description. In that sense, his description isn't that important, as witness descriptions are generally not very reliable.
                Last edited by FrankO; 01-23-2023, 04:03 PM.
                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  An excellent and fair assessment as ever Jeff. I’d just throw in another possibility (and it’s one that’s been mentioned before of course). What if Harvey wasn’t as diligent as he might have been and only stood at the top of Church Passage without down going to the entry to Mitre Square? There’s no evidence to back this possibility up of course but we do know that Harvey dismissed from the force for reasons unknown just 10 months or so later.
                  And what remains of Harvey's file (stored at the London Metropolitan Archive) includes letters of recommendation endorsing his appointment but not documents detailing the reason for his dismissal - which were presumably there originally. Throw in MacNaghten's teaser about no-one ever seeing the Ripper except perhaps "the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square" and you have to wonder if Harvey saw something (or someone) which he failed to report at the time.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                    And what remains of Harvey's file (stored at the London Metropolitan Archive) includes letters of recommendation endorsing his appointment but not documents detailing the reason for his dismissal - which were presumably there originally. Throw in MacNaghten's teaser about no-one ever seeing the Ripper except perhaps "the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square" and you have to wonder if Harvey saw something (or someone) which he failed to report at the time.
                    Yeah that one certainly merits a Colin. Do we know if there are any other items missing from the file or is it just any mention of the reason for his dismissal?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Yeah that one certainly merits a Colin. Do we know if there are any other items missing from the file or is it just any mention of the reason for his dismissal?
                      When I saw it about ten years ago all that remained were testimonials and the outer folder with the word "Dismissed" written thereon in heavy pencil. Others who have seen it more recently can perhaps give more up-to-date information. Why would you keep documents justifying an officer's appointment but not those justifying his dismissal? If he was, for example, dismissed for drinking on duty (as many were) why would you not leave that on the record?

                      Highly speculative scenario follows. (Spoiler alert!).

                      Harvey was a Sussex man originally if memory serves - so (at a stretch) could he have been the Seaside Home witness? He wasn't Jewish of course but I believe the Met used to refer to the City Police as "Jewries" (because their HQ was located at 26 Old Jewry back in the day).

                      Tin hat on stand-by!
                      Last edited by Bridewell; 01-24-2023, 06:38 PM.
                      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                        When I saw it about ten years ago all that remained were testimonials and the outer folder with the word "Dismissed" written thereon in heavy pencil. Others who have seen it more recently can perhaps give more up-to-date information. Why would you keep documents justifying an officer's appointment but not those justifying his dismissal? If he was, for example, dismissed for drinking on duty (as many were) why would you not leave that on the record?

                        Highly speculative scenario follows. (Spoiler alert!).

                        Harvey was a Sussex man originally if memory serves - so (at a stretch) could he have been the Seaside Home witness? He wasn't Jewish of course but I believe the Met used to refer to the City Police as "Jewries" (because their HQ was located at 26 Old Jewry back in the day).

                        Tin hat on stand-by!
                        Hi Bridewell,

                        Interesting idea about PC Harvey being the Seaside Home witness, but it seems to me unlikely that he would be described as refusing to give testimony because the suspect was Jewish, etc. While I could possibly see the witness being referred to as being "Jewish" through your suggestion, it seems like a lot of leaps of faith have to be made with regards to the proposed suspect. And I doubt if PC Harvey refused to give testimony against the suspect it would be for the reasons given, rather I'm sure it would have been interpreted more along the lines of being angry towards the police (i.e. refuses to help them if he felt he was unfairly dismissed; he's holding a grudge against them, etc).

                        Personally, I think the idea that the witness refused to swear to the identification because the suspect was also Jewish was not something the witness said but rather a prejudicial assumption made by the police. Rather, I suspect things went more along the lines of the witness indicated they thought the suspect could be the person they saw, but they were not positive, and perhaps they were concerned about misidentifying someone who could end up getting hanged as a result. The fact the suspect was Jewish playing no part in the witness' refusal to swear to the identification could easily be the case, but the police may have presumed it was an important factor nonetheless (i.e. were wrong about that).

                        On the other hand, I think an argument could be made that it is worth considering PC Harvey as potentially the City PC near Mitre Square who has been described as the only person who may have seen JtR (there are various scenario's one could imagine where and when this sighting could take place; i.e. pre-murder, as Eddowes comes down Houndsditch she meets JtR and PC Harvey passed them at that time, taking note but no action despite there being orders to question couples; post-murder, JtR exits Mitre Square back through Church Passage and is seen by PC Harvey, who takes no action at that time as there's no reason to given he's alone, but when he realizes there is a murder he withholds this information for some time for fear of getting into trouble, and when it comes out he is dismissed primarily for the withholding of important information; etc). PC Watkins is also a candidate, given it is possible JtR could have been seen by him after JtR leaves Mitre Square provided he turned towards Aldgate (he could have, for example, been seen exiting Mitre Street and turning onto Aldgate, and at that time PC Watkins would have had no reason to question him - the murder is not yet known).

                        Sadly, we don't actually know what route JtR used upon leaving Mitre Square, so while either PC Harvey or PC Watkins could potentially be that City PC, and by choosing one or the other does require that JtR approach or leave Mitre Square by certain routes, we have no actual data on the route. We can only show that the "required routes" are possible, and so we cannot rule out anything. We're just left with a bunch of viable hypotheses. Moreover, none of the ones I've suggested here even need to be correct (the described City PC could be some other unnamed PC that we do not know about, or perhaps as many suggest, it's an erroneous description of PC Smith who was a Met PC in Berner's Street).

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Hi Bridewell,

                          Interesting idea about PC Harvey being the Seaside Home witness, but it seems to me unlikely that he would be described as refusing to give testimony because the suspect was Jewish, etc. While I could possibly see the witness being referred to as being "Jewish" through your suggestion, it seems like a lot of leaps of faith have to be made with regards to the proposed suspect. And I doubt if PC Harvey refused to give testimony against the suspect it would be for the reasons given, rather I'm sure it would have been interpreted more along the lines of being angry towards the police (i.e. refuses to help them if he felt he was unfairly dismissed; he's holding a grudge against them, etc).

                          Personally, I think the idea that the witness refused to swear to the identification because the suspect was also Jewish was not something the witness said but rather a prejudicial assumption made by the police. Rather, I suspect things went more along the lines of the witness indicated they thought the suspect could be the person they saw, but they were not positive, and perhaps they were concerned about misidentifying someone who could end up getting hanged as a result. The fact the suspect was Jewish playing no part in the witness' refusal to swear to the identification could easily be the case, but the police may have presumed it was an important factor nonetheless (i.e. were wrong about that).

                          On the other hand, I think an argument could be made that it is worth considering PC Harvey as potentially the City PC near Mitre Square who has been described as the only person who may have seen JtR (there are various scenario's one could imagine where and when this sighting could take place; i.e. pre-murder, as Eddowes comes down Houndsditch she meets JtR and PC Harvey passed them at that time, taking note but no action despite there being orders to question couples; post-murder, JtR exits Mitre Square back through Church Passage and is seen by PC Harvey, who takes no action at that time as there's no reason to given he's alone, but when he realizes there is a murder he withholds this information for some time for fear of getting into trouble, and when it comes out he is dismissed primarily for the withholding of important information; etc). PC Watkins is also a candidate, given it is possible JtR could have been seen by him after JtR leaves Mitre Square provided he turned towards Aldgate (he could have, for example, been seen exiting Mitre Street and turning onto Aldgate, and at that time PC Watkins would have had no reason to question him - the murder is not yet known).

                          Sadly, we don't actually know what route JtR used upon leaving Mitre Square, so while either PC Harvey or PC Watkins could potentially be that City PC, and by choosing one or the other does require that JtR approach or leave Mitre Square by certain routes, we have no actual data on the route. We can only show that the "required routes" are possible, and so we cannot rule out anything. We're just left with a bunch of viable hypotheses. Moreover, none of the ones I've suggested here even need to be correct (the described City PC could be some other unnamed PC that we do not know about, or perhaps as many suggest, it's an erroneous description of PC Smith who was a Met PC in Berner's Street).

                          - Jeff
                          I go with the idea of the killer going out into Mitre Street and then left into Aldgate - possibly using the small passage to the end of Leadenhall Street to circumnavigate PC Watkins. PC Harvey may have then seen the killer cross the junction at the end of Duke Street onto Aldgate High Street or even passed him more closely shortly after turning into Aldgate to walk up to Mitre Street.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                            I go with the idea of the killer going out into Mitre Street and then left into Aldgate - possibly using the small passage to the end of Leadenhall Street to circumnavigate PC Watkins. PC Harvey may have then seen the killer cross the junction at the end of Duke Street onto Aldgate High Street or even passed him more closely shortly after turning into Aldgate to walk up to Mitre Street.
                            Hi CC,

                            My bet is, currently, that JtR exits via Mitre Street, but heads north. If he goes South, and through the passage you mention, he probably bumps into PC Watkins. Of course, when that happens PC Watkins has no reason do anything, and it could just be this is the "city PC" referred to in Macnaughten's missives, but regardless, fleeing South out of Mitre Square isn't excluded, though at the moment I see it as unlikely.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Hi CC,

                              My bet is, currently, that JtR exits via Mitre Street, but heads north. If he goes South, and through the passage you mention, he probably bumps into PC Watkins. Of course, when that happens PC Watkins has no reason do anything, and it could just be this is the "city PC" referred to in Macnaughten's missives, but regardless, fleeing South out of Mitre Square isn't excluded, though at the moment I see it as unlikely.

                              - Jeff
                              I'm just wondering about a convergence point. In that, Catherine coming down Houndsditch appears to be an illogical route to take after leaving the police station unless she was looking to return to the spot she was arrested at (she's retracing the steps back from when the policemen carried her to the station). If the killer takes a route south and heads east to Aldgate High Street then it is going toward the same location. Catherine was supposed to have gone to Bermondsey to seek financial help but instead was found in Aldgate High Street three sheets to the wind. Where had she been drinking and who paid for the drink? Did she meet with someone in that area before her arrest? We'll never know, of course.

                              But we at least know for sure the killer did go east as the apron piece proves. Only the killer could have possibly taken it to Goulston Street.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                                I'm just wondering about a convergence point. In that, Catherine coming down Houndsditch appears to be an illogical route to take after leaving the police station unless she was looking to return to the spot she was arrested at (she's retracing the steps back from when the policemen carried her to the station). If the killer takes a route south and heads east to Aldgate High Street then it is going toward the same location. Catherine was supposed to have gone to Bermondsey to seek financial help but instead was found in Aldgate High Street three sheets to the wind. Where had she been drinking and who paid for the drink? Did she meet with someone in that area before her arrest? We'll never know, of course.

                                But we at least know for sure the killer did go east as the apron piece proves. Only the killer could have possibly taken it to Goulston Street.
                                Hi CC,

                                Good point about JtR possibly heading back towards where they possibly met up in the first place. It points to JtR being around there for more than just prowling for potential victims; not conclusive, of course, but suggestive. I think "going to Bermondsey" might have been a cover story, used to avoid the uncomfortable reality of having to engage in prostitution in order to survive type thing. It is likely she was able to get men to pay for her drinks, and likely was hanging out in a pub for much of the day until she got arrested. She and Kelly had pawned his boots, and I suppose there could have been some money left over from that? I know some of it was used for her bed and they had a meal. If she told Kelly it was all gone, but had kept some money to go on the town, maybe she bought some drinks from that?

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X