How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[Wickerman]

However, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "expertly"!

...or perhaps "patience"?

[lynn cates]

nomenclature

Hello Sir John.

"She just had to scream "Ripper" and the man would have run for his life."

Permit a correction. The "Ripper" at that point had never been heard of. Moreover, it was nearly 3 weeks since "Leather Apron" had struck.

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello Sir John.

"She just had to scream "Ripper" and the man would have run for his life."

Permit a correction. The "Ripper" at that point had never been heard of. Moreover, it was nearly 3 weeks since "Leather Apron" had struck.

Cheers.
LC

You're absolutely right about "Ripper".
Nevertheless, the three week period, in my opinion, would also affect the situation, but things were far from back to normal, if only taking into account the number of police officer now involved.

[John G]

My only problem with the man assaulting Stride in the street being JtR is the fact that Whitechapel was going already on high alert with JtR. Stride yelled, but not very loudly. She just had to scream "Ripper" and the man would have run for his life.

It does also explain why JtR couldn't rely on very secluded place close to his hunting grounds; they were probably under surveillance.

He had to take more risks in two ways:
-He had to go farther than his original intent.
-He had to go earlier in the night.

Yes, I agree that an increased police presence would have forced him to adapt his behavior. However, in relation to the assault witnessed by Schwartz, I think it possible that he simply lost his composure, perhaps frustrated by Stride's lack of co-operation, i.e she probably wasn't soliciting that night.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

The compulsive detective story reader in me want to scream: "what about the pipe man?!?"

John G: yes, absolutely possible. We can't pretend to know the mental state of the assassin.

[Sam Flynn]

... but the killer could well have reasoned that it WAS secluded.

Not likely. It was next to a club-house with men singing inside, in the middle of a populated street, around chucking-out time.

[Sam Flynn]

Describing Hanbury Street as sleepy relative to the other venues is wrong. That´s what I´m saying.

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.

[Fisherman]

Not likely. It was next to a club-house with men singing inside, in the middle of a populated street, around chucking-out time.

Once again, Gareth:

1. It was next to a club-house with men singin inside - but it wasn´t IN the club-house.

2. It was not in the middle of a populated street - it led off the street.

3. It was around chucking-out time - but why would the ones chucked out continue the merriments inside Dutfields Yard?

Any person who was not aquainted with Berner Street and who sought seclusion there, would be able to see that there was a pitch-dark yard alongside the street (not in the middle of it), with gates carrying the text "W. Hindley, Sack Manufacturer and A. Dutfield, Van and Cart Builder".

What conclusions would be drawn from such a thing?

Perhaps "Yikes, that has to be a yard in which people live and where clubbers from the adjacent house pop in and out"?

Or maybe "Hey, here´s a deserted working yard after working hours with nobody at all inside?"

I know which of the two suggestions I would have gone for.

In this discussion, it is immaterial to me that there WERE people living in the yard, and that there WAS a club door inside it. It´s all about first impressions here, Gareth, and that first impression would have been that there was a dark, secluded place on offer in Berner Street that would seemingly be a grand place to kill undetected in: Dutfields Yard.

If you can´t take that on board, then I fail to see what more I can possibly do about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

You have no idea, why not admit that?

You don´t know how populated either street was. Berner Street could well have been totally empty but for Stride as the killer entered it, killed her and left.

Hanbury Street could have had a number of people extiting their doors - like Cadosch - and leaving for their jobs at roughly around 5.30.

What we don´t know, we should not postulate as facts. What we do know is for example that Mrs Long was on her way to the market. Would it be reasonable to think that other people were too? What was it she said about that couple, discussing with the coroner:
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

So, in Elizabeth Long´s universe, there were lots of couples standing around in Hanbury Street around 5.30 in the mornings. Normally. She was used to it, it was how she looked upon the street.

So what we have here is a possibility that Berner Street was empty when the killer was there but for Stride and that Hanbury Street was lively with people at around 5.30 - not that the killer was there at that stage, but anyhow ...

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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]

[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

[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]

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

[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