How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[John G]

I didn't say that Hanbury Street was sleepy compared to the other venues. I'm saying that Hanbury was decidedly sleepy compared to Berner Street. And I'm not wrong in saying so, for it plainly was.

But isn't the nature of the threat also important? I don't doubt that Berner Street was relatively busy but Stride was murdered at the front of a yard that was cloaked in almost complete darkness.

What risks was the killer actually taking? If someone exited the club all he had to do was step into Berner Street. And the person exiting the club might not even notice Stride's body, or might initially assume that she was drunk, as Diemshitz thought might be the case. Even if she'd been eviscerated he might not notice: the injuries to Nichols abdomen were only noticed once the body had been moved to the mortuary.

And what if he was disturbed by someone entering the yard in order to get to the club? All he has to do is to retreat further into the darkness. And Surely the first instinct of any individual who discovers the body is going to be to go to the club and raise the alarm, which is exactly what Diemshitz did; what he's not likely to do is to go plunging into the pitch-black darkness of the yard where a knife-wielding maniac might be lying in wait. The killer therefore makes his escape simply by stepping into Berner Street, which is why the murder location was ideal in some ways; it was dark enough to prevent easy detection but just a step or two away from the relative safety of Berner Street.

Of course, at this point a heavily populated Berner Street, or general locality, work to the killers advantage, as he can simply mingle with the crowd and just act casually, whilst any pursuers are busily looking for a man with a leather apron, carrying a bloodied knife and a black bag and displaying a crazed grin!

Even if the killer decided to confront any inquisitive individual entering or exiting the club I doubt he would have faced much resistance: the instinct of most of the locals seems to have been to mind there own business. Schwartz and Pipeman were easily deterred simply by the shout of "Lipski" and Lawende, Levy and Harris don't exactly strike me as three individuals who were itching for a confrontation with a knife-wielding maniac.

In fact, I doubt if even shouts of murder would have attracted that much attention: it didn't at miller's Court, where such exclamations were considered commonplace.

in contrast, at Mitre Square I doubt if either PCs Harvey or Watkins would be likely to run away, simply because the killer shouted "Lipski" at them. Clearly that would have represented a far riskier encounter.

Best wishes,

John

[John G]

Im arguing about whether or not we may surmise that there was a steady trickle of clubbers into Berner Street, one per minute or thereabouts (your assertion) or that there were substantial removes of time when the street had no clubbers on it, as per Schwartz, Mortimer and the absense of any witness having left the club between 00.45 and 01.00 and testifying about it (my take on things).

How you could have missed that is beyond me, especially as you were the one who presented a lot of the arguments.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman,

At about 8:30 around 100 people attended a discussion at the Berner Street Club, however, at about 11:30pm the talk ended and most people left, leaving about 20 to 30 individuals who stayed behind.

Between 11:30pm and 1:00am, a period of one and half hours, Begg and Bennett (2012) identify just 7 individuals who either entered or left the club: Morris Eagle and his fiance Kate Kopelansky; William West, who was short-sighted, his brother and Louis Stansley; Joseph Lave, who wasn't short-sighted but found it so dark that he had trouble finding the door to get back in after leaving for a smoke; and, of course, Louis Diemschitz.

Now frankly if some people believe that this gives the impression of a busy club all I can say is that they really ought to get out more!

It's also worth considering Evans and Rumbelow (2006) who note that the police subsequently searched just 28 individuals from the club, which also doesn't exactly convey the impression of a busy establishment.

And, of course, Fanny Mortimer, who lived just 3 doors from the club, claimed to be standing outside of her house for nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00am and saw no one apart from Leon Goldstein and his black bag.

I also think that the evidence of Edward Spooner is useful. He arrived at the club around 1:05am after he saw Diemshitz and Kozebrodsky running up the street shouting "murder" and "police". And what did he find when he got there? The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee fully mobilized and ready for action? A baying, riotous mob of locals who had just spilled out of the nearby pubs and were now screaming for blood? The local area, including the Yard, being extensively searched? No, what he found was just 15 people quietly milling about in the passage. I think that just about says it all really!

Best wishes,

John

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder what time the club normally closed.

Did they ring a bell and call out, 'Time, comrades PLEASE ! Haven't you got shtetls to go to??'

The meeting was over before 11:30 that night, and we know of around 30 people that were still in the club at 1am. We also know by virtue of the neighbors that often "low men" were seen or heard in the passageway smoking and talking after meetings, long after 1am....so the choice to kill Liz feet from the street in the passageway suggests one of a vey few things.....1. That the killer didn't know the habits of the club members and their frequent use of that passageway after 1am, 2. That the killer sought only o cut Liz Stride once...clearly not a ripper trait, and 3. That the killer was among those men that were still in attendance, and that he killed Liz because she refused an offer to go deeper into the yard for some antics, or that he thought she was spying on the club, or that he knew her and had some lethal grudge against her.

Funny that Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly had only recently had changes in their personal lives with respect to men....Liz just broke up with Kidney, Kate and John do not seem to be living "as man and wife", and Mary had just thrown John out.

Many people assume by the physical wounds that only one person must have been responsible for the murders, or capable of them, assumptions that
ignore the jilted lover possibilities, the love triangle possibilities as in Marys case, and the possibility that they were killed because of something they knew that posed a threat to others...like Kates claim she knew the killer and intended to turn him in.

A knife and a motive are the necessary components for all of these murders, assuming the only motive could be compulsive madness is just a cheap short cut...not an answer.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Frankly I don't believe he cared where he did his work...Bucks Row as the preeminent example of that, and the move to he Hanbury backyard might just as easily have been so he could hope for more time alone with the body, not as a safer venue.
Cheers

One advantage came with the other, Michael. Being left alone resulted in being able to leave undetected.
On the whole, you are spot on here otherwise - he prioritized seclusion over fleeing opportunities, just as I have said many times by now. Itīs my exact take too.
And I do think that Nichols or her killer felt the handles of the stable doors leading into Browns before she died.

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Taken over from the "FBI Profile" thread. A discussion on the comparative "safety" of various murder sites might be interesting, so here's one for a kick-off.
Not so much of a risk-taker, John. Mitre Square was sparsely populated compared to Berner Street, comprising a number of non-residential premises. Besides, it was much quieter than Dutfield's Yard, and the murder was committed in the darkest part of the Square, nowhere near a busy clubhouse. Furthermore, there were no pipe-smokers, broad-shouldered men, incontinent Poles, doorstepping neighbours, Gladstone-bag clutching salesmen, or donkey-trotting Dim$hitz's going to and fro. Just two policemen on different beats.

If "Jack" was that much of a risk-taker, and Dutfield's Yard was such a "good" place to commit murder, how come he bottled out of the Stride murder so quickly?

To that last point Sam, the Yard was a good spot...had she been killed in it....but she wasn't killed in the yard, she was killed in the passageway mere feet from the street. As for Mitre Square, had the killer known of the police beats that covered that square, and the fact that a policeman's bedroom window looked down on the murder site, and that the darkness was almost complete at the murder scene, he might have had great reservations about that location. In fact, that murder takes place when the only people we know of that were out and about in that immediate area were police...or retired police.

I think the prevailing theory of a mentally ill man randomly assaulting strangers, working prostitutes,... in and of itself dismisses the idea that any Ripper kill was done somewhere the killer believed was "safe". He acted impulsively, based on his assessment of the victim and the window of opportunity.

Frankly I don't believe he cared where he did his work...Bucks Row as the preeminent example of that, and the move to he Hanbury backyard might just as easily have been so he could hope for more time alone with the body, not as a safer venue.

As for the 3 Canonicals that followed Annie,. there is no evidence that any of them were soliciting at the time, there is no evidence that excludes the possibility that they knew their killer, and there is no physical evidence that ties any of those murders to the first 2...including the demonstrated skill and knowledge used in the first 2 murders.

Cheers

[Errata]

You know, it's possible that all of the murder sites were perfectly safe, and he knew they were perfectly safe, and demonstrates that by not getting caught. We don't know that he was interrupted with Stride. It might not have been Jack who killed her, and even if it was, he may have chosen not to continue because something disqualified her.

[Fisherman]

I don't know what you're arguing about. Really I don't. You just might need a break.

Mike

Im arguing about whether or not we may surmise that there was a steady trickle of clubbers into Berner Street, one per minute or thereabouts (your assertion) or that there were substantial removes of time when the street had no clubbers on it, as per Schwartz, Mortimer and the absense of any witness having left the club between 00.45 and 01.00 and testifying about it (my take on things).

How you could have missed that is beyond me, especially as you were the one who presented a lot of the arguments.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,

What's more anarchic, a trickle or all out of
the door at the same time?

MrB

There you go! So the street WOULD have been empty, in wait for the anarchist onset.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Just to add my four penn'orth of common sense to the proceedings. This was not a pub, it was a club for people with serious political beliefs. I can't see someone looking round and saying, 'Its a bit dead in here tonight, I'm off to the Nihilist's Arms in Fairclough Street.' I imagine it would have been more like a private party, where early leavers would feel the need to make their excuses to the hosts before departing.

'What, you are leaving before comrade Rodinsksy has sung ' Pogrom Blues'? Just how committed to the cause are you?

MrB

[The Good Michael]

Mike:

There is a difference here. I don't wish to be stubborn.

Nor do you need to. To you, itīs a done deal: "Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt".

I don't need any newspaper articles to understand the drinking habits and comings and goings of revelers. I was a bartender for 3 years. I saw many trickles in that time and not just because of weak bladders. So...you may be stubborn if you wish. I prefer life experience and logic in this instance. You can hold onto Mortimer's petticoats if you wish. She has always been a bundle of knowledge.

You were a ... bartender for three years? And learnt from that experience how the clubbers of the IWMEC exited the clubhouse in Berner Street in 1888?

I mean, come on, Mike. What kind of evidence is that?

You prefer logic and experience to Mrs Mortimer. Keep in mind that it is YOUR logic - mine tells a different story. My logic says to me that if Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein, then yes, she WAS standing on her doorstep, for Leon Goldstein DID pass that night. After that, I fail to see why she would lie about or forget the rest.

I also fail to see that the absense of testimony relating to the relevant hours of 00.45 to 1.00 could mean anything else than a lack of people being able to say something about the street or yard at that remove in time.

Incidentally, that tallies with what Mrs Mortimer said. No clubbers.

But you disagree. They WERE there at that stage. They trickled out of the club, because your experience of three years of bartending tells us that they must have.

That is pretty meagre, Iīm afraid.

I have been standing outside many a pub late at night, beer-glass in hand, and I know that it will be an area where people are buzzing around like wasps on a lump of sugar. I wouldnīt argue against that. But I would not say that since this has been the picture Iīve taken part of, it must have applied in Berner Street in 1888 too.

The testimony is all we have to go by. It is all-important. And it tells us that nobody professes to having been close by the yard or in it between 00.45 and 01.00. In that respect, the lack of evidence in the field and Mrs Mortimers story corroborate each other. Itīs good enough for me.

Thereīs of course also Schwartz. He says that there was BS man walking down Berner Street and Pipeman coming from that corner beerjoint. But he says not a iot about any clubbers. Thatīs further corroboration on the topic. And Schwartz didnīt wear any petticoat, so maybe I can hold on to him without being ridiculed?

I don't know what you're arguing about. Really I don't. You just might need a break.

Mike

[MrBarnett]

Rules? In an anarchist club? Really...!

Fisherman

Fish,

What's more anarchic, a trickle or all out of
the door at the same time?

MrB

[Fisherman]

I wonder what time the club normally closed.

Did they ring a bell and call out, 'Time, comrades PLEASE ! Haven't you got shtetls to go to??'

Rules? In an anarchist club? Really...!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

There is a difference here. I don't wish to be stubborn.

Nor do you need to. To you, itīs a done deal: "Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt".

I don't need any newspaper articles to understand the drinking habits and comings and goings of revelers. I was a bartender for 3 years. I saw many trickles in that time and not just because of weak bladders. So...you may be stubborn if you wish. I prefer life experience and logic in this instance. You can hold onto Mortimer's petticoats if you wish. She has always been a bundle of knowledge.

You were a ... bartender for three years? And learnt from that experience how the clubbers of the IWMEC exited the clubhouse in Berner Street in 1888?

I mean, come on, Mike. What kind of evidence is that?

You prefer logic and experience to Mrs Mortimer. Keep in mind that it is YOUR logic - mine tells a different story. My logic says to me that if Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein, then yes, she WAS standing on her doorstep, for Leon Goldstein DID pass that night. After that, I fail to see why she would lie about or forget the rest.

I also fail to see that the absense of testimony relating to the relevant hours of 00.45 to 1.00 could mean anything else than a lack of people being able to say something about the street or yard at that remove in time.

Incidentally, that tallies with what Mrs Mortimer said. No clubbers.

But you disagree. They WERE there at that stage. They trickled out of the club, because your experience of three years of bartending tells us that they must have.

That is pretty meagre, Iīm afraid.

I have been standing outside many a pub late at night, beer-glass in hand, and I know that it will be an area where people are buzzing around like wasps on a lump of sugar. I wouldnīt argue against that. But I would not say that since this has been the picture Iīve taken part of, it must have applied in Berner Street in 1888 too.

The testimony is all we have to go by. It is all-important. And it tells us that nobody professes to having been close by the yard or in it between 00.45 and 01.00. In that respect, the lack of evidence in the field and Mrs Mortimers story corroborate each other. Itīs good enough for me.

Thereīs of course also Schwartz. He says that there was BS man walking down Berner Street and Pipeman coming from that corner beerjoint. But he says not a iot about any clubbers. Thatīs further corroboration on the topic. And Schwartz didnīt wear any petticoat, so maybe I can hold on to him without being ridiculed?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I wonder what time the club normally closed.

Did they ring a bell and call out, 'Time, comrades PLEASE ! Haven't you got shtetls to go to??'

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313329]

And I found a couple of useful details to allow for me to be stubborn on the point. What testimony do YOU have speaking of a steady trickle of clubbers pouring into Berner Street at the relevant remove in time, Mike?

There is a difference here. I don't wish to be stubborn. I don't need any newspaper articles to understand the drinking habits and comings and goings of revelers. I was a bartender for 3 years. I saw many trickles in that time and not just because of weak bladders. So...you may be stubborn if you wish. I prefer life experience and logic in this instance. You can hold onto Mortimer's petticoats if you wish. She has always been a bundle of knowledge.

Mike