How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[Fisherman]

Between 1am and 4am the streets would be at their quietest. That's when a kill in a dark corner of a street would be preferable, as the killer would have a constant view of his escape routes. Earlier or later, killing in a yard would provide the seclusion unavailable in the streets, but would carry its own risks when it came to escape. Do the timings of the murders bear that out? I think so.

Was that timetable posted on the walls of Whitechapel? Of course not - stupid me; that would have all the prostitution business going down in yards up til 1 o clock, after which it would have moved out onto the streets, effectively prohibiting any murders!

I think we may safely conclude that the degree to which the streets were quiet or not would vary quite a lot. Residential streets, factory streets, nightlife streets - they would all have had their own timetables.

At any rate, if there was a lot of people in a street at, say 3.15, I am anything but sure that the killer would have whiskered them all into a dark yard while he did the business out in the open street. I think he adapted from situation to situation, but I think that an empty yard was ALWAYS to be preferred to the open street alternative.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313327]

It helps me clarify things to a satisfactory level by having certainty about something that is a conclusion based upon my logic. Clearly it isn't based on yours, however. Yet, it is what I interpret.

Mike

Aha. Well, it does not clarify things to me when somebody asserts that we may draw conclusions that are not there for us to draw. It veils things.

Would you accept if I interepreted the killings as the work of Charles Lechmere and said that it was not a hunch but a certainty...? Somehow, I don´t think you would go along with that reasoning.

Then again, who am I to quibble - I don´t go along with YOUR reasoning. 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?

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313323]

Personally, I think they were. But my guess is as good - or bad - as yours. None of the suggestions are anything but that, and it does not help that you claim that there can be certainty.

Clearly, there can´t.

It helps me clarify things to a satisfactory level by having certainty about something that is a conclusion based upon my logic. Clearly it isn't based on yours, however. Yet, it is what I interpret.

Mike

[MrBarnett]

Between 1am and 4am the streets would be at their quietest. That's when a kill in a dark corner of a street would be preferable, as the killer would have a constant view of his escape routes. Earlier or later, killing in a yard would provide the seclusion unavailable in the streets, but would carry its own risks when it came to escape. Do the timings of the murders bear that out? I think so.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313320]

Steady trickle would be every minute or so someone leaves and another is saying goodbyes. That's my take on a trickle. A trickle doesn't stop. It isn't slow droplets spaced apart by lengthy intervals of time. There really can be no doubt that Berner Street in the area of the club was busier than Hanbury could have been. Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt. That doesn't change anything in my mind with regards to Stride being a potential ripper victim. Not a whit for me.

Mike

I don´t think there was somebody exiting the club every minute, Mike. We have Mrs Mortimer, for example, who speaks of Leon Goldstein as the only one she noticed passing through the street as she stood on her doorstep for a significant period of time. She also mentions the couple at the corner, but says not a word about any clubbers coming or going.

So no, there was not that kind of traffic at that stage. If there had been, then Stride would not have died in the yard. There must have been more substantial amounts of time when nobody came or went to or from the club.

The club members were of course interviewed about whether any of them were in the yard in the relevant time period inbetween 12.45 and 01.00. None of them professed to having been there. Did they leave through the front door, unbolting it from the inside, like Morris Eagle and his girlfriend at around 11.30 PM? If so, none of them spoke of that either during the period. At least I cannot remember any such witness or testimony. So where´s that one-minute trickle?

Was the club area busier than Hanbury Street on the whole? It may well have been, yes. The Hanbury Street residents hitting the street at 5.30 will reasonably have been more scattered, but they may have been around in greater numbers nevertheless.
Personally, I think they were. But my guess is as good - or bad - as yours. None of the suggestions are anything but that, and it does not help that you claim that there can be certainty.

Clearly, there can´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313318]

Define "a fairly steady trickle", Mike!

Steady trickle would be every minute or so someone leaves and another is saying goodbyes. That's my take on a trickle. A trickle doesn't stop. It isn't slow droplets spaced apart by lengthy intervals of time. There really can be no doubt that Berner Street in the area of the club was busier than Hanbury could have been. Not 'little' doubt, but 'no' doubt. That doesn't change anything in my mind with regards to Stride being a potential ripper victim. Not a whit for me.

Mike

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313317]

I agree that this spot may have made him comfortable enough to try and kill someone. However, as you have acknowledged that the Club would have had a steady trickle of people leaving, it simply had to have been busier than Hanbury. There really should be no question about that. ..unless Hanbury had a Friar's roast going on that I never heard of.

Mike

Define "a fairly steady trickle", Mike!

One person per minute?

One per every five minutes?

One per every fifteen minutes?

Could there be differing intervals of time involved?

Before you go "You admitted it!", you need to give these matters some afterthought.

I would say that if three people left the club in a twenty minute period of time, it would be a trickle.

I would also say that I would not be perplexed if ten people passed through Hanbury Street in twenty minutes at 5.30. If not, then I would be perplexed.

... but I would not try and make you agree that it COULD happen, since I don´t need to - I know it anyway.

The basics are that the yard could be taken for a useful place to kill by somebody who did not know it very well, and that either Berner Street OR Hanbury Street could have been more awake and crowded on the respective mornings. If you have any objections to that, they will have to stand for you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313308]

It´s anybody´s guess - but what I am saying is that we cannot exclude that the killer did not know of the side door. If so, and if he netered the street at a stage when there was noone in it but for Stride, I think that the apparent character of a working yard, the businesses having their names painted in white on the yard gates, the darkness of the yard and the overall setting could easily have made a killer who looked for secluded spots to kill and eviscerate in go "There it is!".

I agree that this spot may have made him comfortable enough to try and kill someone. However, as you have acknowledged that the Club would have had a steady trickle of people leaving, it simply had to have been busier than Hanbury. There really should be no question about that. ..unless Hanbury had a Friar's roast going on that I never heard of.

Mike

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;313314]

Hi Fish,

That's interesting. Sounds like you don't think the killer knew the area very well. If, say, he had grown up in the area, he would presumably have passed the yard in daylight and would know what lay just beyond the gates, wouldn't you say?

MrB

Who knows,Mr Barnett?

Are you having problems with me making a general observation? It´s refreshing, if so - many people have trouble with me making observations from a Lechmereian point of view.

On the whole, if we are to speak of Lechmere here, then I´d say that it is not easy to say how much he would have known of the yard. It was reasonably not a place you would visit without a reason. If you didn´t stay there or work there or belong to the club, then why would you aquaint yourself with it?
Then again, maybe he DID aquaint himself with it.

There´s really no telling. And he could have approached Stride with the sole intention of cutting her neck - there´s no telling in that area either.

But it IS telling to some extent that people sometimes would disallow me to speak of Lechmere and speak of derailings of threads, whereas at other times, they will try and make me speak of the same man. It´s a bit confusing, but telling.

Hope that answers your question, Mr Barnett!

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;313308]

Fisherman,

Would it be wrong to conclude that the club, being what it was, a social connection, a place of respite, and a drinking establishment, would have had a fairly steady trickle of folks leaving from just before closing time to some time past closing?

No, I think that would be a fair bet. We have reports of people leaving with their girlfriends and returning back some m inutes later and so on, so it won´t be far off the mark, Mike.

This would be the case in any pub I've ever been in (both of them), and I believe it would apply here. Along with that leaving would be the stop in the loo.

Yep, that sounds quite feasible to me.

Now, that doesn't mean the killer knew anything about when the speakers would finish and when the music would stop and when people would leave. In fact, I suggest that the area around the club would have been quieter before the killer did what he did, but not much so. remember there were pubs along the street aside from this club.

It´s anybody´s guess - but what I am saying is that we cannot exclude that the killer did not know of the side door. If so, and if he netered the street at a stage when there was noone in it but for Stride, I think that the apparent character of a working yard, the businesses having their names painted in white on the yard gates, the darkness of the yard and the overall setting could easily have made a killer who looked for secluded spots to kill and eviscerate in go "There it is!".

I am not - and have never been - saying that the street was comparatively quiet. Clearly, it was not. There was the club, and we know of people moving in the street and so on. Other streets will have been more quiet.

Then again, Hanbury Street would not have been all quiet either, Dorset Street would have had people on it from time to time and there were all the dosshouses brimming with people, there was the Duke Street club close to Mitre Square etcetera.
But this killer made the best of what was on offer. I think he sought out the seclusion that was to be found, and I think that Dutfields Yard must have, at a quick glance, have seemed a haven of seclusion. So all I am saying is that he may have felt he had quite possibly found himself the kind of venue he seems to have been looking for each and every time, with the possible (but not certain) exception of Buck´s Row.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

That's interesting. Sounds like you don't think the killer knew the area very well. If, say, he had grown up in the area, he would presumably have passed the yard in daylight and would know what lay just beyond the gates, wouldn't you say?

MrB

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

This has all been covered before. Baxter makes clear EXACTLY what Phillips said as well as the context.

Cheers.
LC

So it was Baxter you quoted from the Ultimate. Of course. That makes sense. You choose to take the words of an official who had a task of making things fit together over taking the words of Phillips himself.

When the original source does not agree with you, go find yourself a source that does.

That´s some fine research, I have to say! It honour´s your PhD in logic.

And then you add an unsavoury joke to it.

Heh-heh? No. Not in the least. Pathetic is a more suitable word.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

dealing out

Hello Christer. Thanks.

This has all been covered before. Baxter makes clear EXACTLY what Phillips said as well as the context.

You are bringing nothing new to the table. Therefore, I shan't play.

Guess you'll just have to play with yourself.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;313298]

Fisherman,

Would it be wrong to conclude that the club, being what it was, a social connection, a place of respite, and a drinking establishment, would have had a fairly steady trickle of folks leaving from just before closing time to some time past closing?

No, I think that would be a fair bet. We have reports of people leaving with their girlfriends and returning back some m inutes later and so on, so it won´t be far off the mark, Mike.

This would be the case in any pub I've ever been in (both of them), and I believe it would apply here. Along with that leaving would be the stop in the loo.

Yep, that sounds quite feasible to me.

Now, that doesn't mean the killer knew anything about when the speakers would finish and when the music would stop and when people would leave. In fact, I suggest that the area around the club would have been quieter before the killer did what he did, but not much so. remember there were pubs along the street aside from this club.

It´s anybody´s guess - but what I am saying is that we cannot exclude that the killer did not know of the side door. If so, and if he netered the street at a stage when there was noone in it but for Stride, I think that the apparent character of a working yard, the businesses having their names painted in white on the yard gates, the darkness of the yard and the overall setting could easily have made a killer who looked for secluded spots to kill and eviscerate in go "There it is!".

I am not - and have never been - saying that the street was comparatively quiet. Clearly, it was not. There was the club, and we know of people moving in the street and so on. Other streets will have been more quiet.

Then again, Hanbury Street would not have been all quiet either, Dorset Street would have had people on it from time to time and there were all the dosshouses brimming with people, there was the Duke Street club close to Mitre Square etcetera.
But this killer made the best of what was on offer. I think he sought out the seclusion that was to be found, and I think that Dutfields Yard must have, at a quick glance, have seemed a haven of seclusion. So all I am saying is that he may have felt he had quite possibly found himself the kind of venue he seems to have been looking for each and every time, with the possible (but not certain) exception of Buck´s Row.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Would it be wrong to conclude that the club, being what it was, a social connection, a place of respite, and a drinking establishment, would have had a fairly steady trickle of folks leaving from just before closing time to some time past closing? This would be the case in any pub I've ever been in (both of them), and I believe it would apply here. Along with that leaving would be the stop in the loo. Now, that doesn't mean the killer knew anything about when the speakers would finish and when the music would stop and when people would leave. In fact, I suggest that the area around the club would have been quieter before the killer did what he did, but not much so. remember there were pubs along the street aside from this club.

Mike

[Fisherman]

lynn cates:

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"And that also means that Long´s sighting was no longer considered a clue in October. Exit Long."

You're playing a game now. Exit Christer.

A game? If anybody is playing a game here, it´s you. And a strange one at that. Why would the police say that they did not have a clue if they DID have a clue?

As for Phillips, here is PRECISELY what Baxter said of his time.

"It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces." ("Ultimate" pp. 103 & 4.)

With all due respect, it is time to stop playing games.

If it´s respect you are after, why not afford me some of that commodity and stop claiming that I play games? I do nothing of the sort. You are the one who for example say that Phillips "originally" said one thing but then changed his mind. You make it sound as if he had a day or two to think it over, but in reality he gave his picture in one sentence.
That is playing semantic games to me! And it is not flattering at all.

As for the cherrypicked quote, it´s not on page 103-104 in my Ultimate, so I´d be interested to hear exactly what or who you are quoting. A paper? Evans and Skinner? Something else?

While you look it up, here´s what the Times said on the 14:th of September:
Dr Phillips´ positive opinion that the woman had been dead quite two hours when he fist saw the body at half-past 6, throws serious doubt upon the accuracy of at least two important witnesses..."

The Morning Advertiser, reporting, as always, ad verbatim, wrote on the 14:th of September:
How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body? - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence.

Here it is again! And in exact wordings.

What I am saying is that this should be read as Phillips saying that he was of the meaning that she had been dead at least two hours, probably more, but that the cold conditions should allow for us to accept that the "probably more" suggestion may not have come into play.

What YOU are suggesting, Lynn, is that it should be read like this:

Phillips: I think that she had been dead at least two hours when I saw her at 6.30, and I am of the meaning that she would probably have been dead longer than so, but since the morning was cold, I am probably very much wrong and my estimation needs to be altered.

THAT is playing games if anything is!!! Phillips was adamant that she had been dead at least two hours, and he never changed his mind about that. He never allowed for a single minute less. He BELIEVED that she had been dead longer than so, but admitted that the cold conditions of the morning would have meant a quicker cooling of the body, shaving some time off his estimate of a LONGER time than two hours (that was what he said - probably MORE than two hours), and ending up with accepting (but not believing) that it could actually have been as little as two hours.

The best,
Fisherman