Bowden Endacott

[mpriestnall]

There was some difficulty with the author’s presentation- I was told he didn’t give one.
However a 25 minute Q&A did take place and I have the recording, which I’ll post online in the next few days.

JM

I didn't attend that talk so I didn't know there wasn't a presentation as such. Looking forward to hearing the Q&A in due course anyway.

Thanks and regards.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I assume the Policemen you are talking about are George Morris night watchman at Kearly and Tonge & ex met copper or serving officer Richard Pearse who lived at number 3 Mitre Square. If it's not these guys, I am lost.

If you mean the policemen mentioned by Sagar and Macnaghten, I suggest they were not in Mitre Square.

Wickerman has argued convincingly that Macnaghten meant Pc Smith, who was in Berner Street, and Sagar's policeman story is unbelievable.

[JeffHamm]

Perhaps it is just the way it is written up in the press, but the idea of reading about Endacott's demotion to guard duty (because he falsely accused a woman of being a prostitute) leading to a Eureka moment does not bode well. It suggests that the "solution" was found the wrong way round - the suspect leads him to the evidence rather than the evidence leads to the suspect. Such an approach can often result in confirmation bias, where one interprets anything and everything as confirming the suspect while at the same time dismissing and rejecting anything that disconfirms them - in short, there's a high risk of confirmation bias.

Early phases of a murder investigation are not so much about solving who did it, but rather, about ruling out people (i.e. rule out the spouse/partner/ex-partner, family members, close friends, workmates, etc). It's when the investigation cannot rule someone out that they then start to look at them more closely. You have to clear the clutter first, then start looking for the culprit. If you start by deciding "It was the ex-partner" (or policeman in this case), then everything you find will be seen with that conclusion in mind. Confirmation bias is a problem in all areas of research, not just historical or police work, and it takes practice and training and constant self monitoring to try and combat it - always look at the line of reasoning that gets you to your conclusion and look to see if you confidently can rule out other interpretations at each step along the way. My personal view is that in the JtR case, there are just too many points where there are reasonable alternatives which lead to different conclusions, and therefore, the case is unsolvable at this time. New information is needed, and even then, it may only clear up some of the minor mysteries and not necessarily get us to an identity based solution.

Hopefully, though, the book will contain some interesting information, but I rather doubt the case has been closed yet again.

- Jeff

[seanr]

The Endacott/ Cass case is an instructive bit of history, which could in the right hands provide insights into policing and the social position of working class women in late Victorian society.
The urge to find a man who committed the Ripper crimes and let's be honest, the press that it gets, has a tendency to pull in loosely related historic events of the period, obscuring their proper context. This theory saddens and disappoints me. There's no credibility to it.

[John Wheat]

The Endacott/ Cass case is an instructive bit of history, which could in the right hands provide insights into policing and the social position of working class women in late Victorian society.
The urge to find a man who committed the Ripper crimes and let's be honest, the press that it gets, has a tendency to pull in loosely related historic events of the period, obscuring their proper context. This theory saddens and disappoints me. There's no credibility to it.

But there is no credibility to most Ripper theories.

[seanr]

But there is no credibility to most Ripper theories.

And what a depressing state of affairs that is.

[John Wheat]

And what a depressing state of affairs that is.

I agree but that's what we are dealing with.

[Sunny Delight]

Perhaps it is just the way it is written up in the press, but the idea of reading about Endacott's demotion to guard duty (because he falsely accused a woman of being a prostitute) leading to a Eureka moment does not bode well. It suggests that the "solution" was found the wrong way round - the suspect leads him to the evidence rather than the evidence leads to the suspect. Such an approach can often result in confirmation bias, where one interprets anything and everything as confirming the suspect while at the same time dismissing and rejecting anything that disconfirms them - in short, there's a high risk of confirmation bias.

Early phases of a murder investigation are not so much about solving who did it, but rather, about ruling out people (i.e. rule out the spouse/partner/ex-partner, family members, close friends, workmates, etc). It's when the investigation cannot rule someone out that they then start to look at them more closely. You have to clear the clutter first, then start looking for the culprit. If you start by deciding "It was the ex-partner" (or policeman in this case), then everything you find will be seen with that conclusion in mind. Confirmation bias is a problem in all areas of research, not just historical or police work, and it takes practice and training and constant self monitoring to try and combat it - always look at the line of reasoning that gets you to your conclusion and look to see if you confidently can rule out other interpretations at each step along the way. My personal view is that in the JtR case, there are just too many points where there are reasonable alternatives which lead to different conclusions, and therefore, the case is unsolvable at this time. New information is needed, and even then, it may only clear up some of the minor mysteries and not necessarily get us to an identity based solution.

Hopefully, though, the book will contain some interesting information, but I rather doubt the case has been closed yet again.

- Jeff

I agree. I would go further and suggest that at this juncture, even with new information the case cannot be solved. We have no clues bar witness statements which are often contradictory and 135 years of experience has shown us is far from satisfactory to solve a case. We have a general direction of travel of the killer if we believe the apron was dropped in Goulston Street after the Mitre Square murder. That is literally it. How anyone can suggest solving the crimes now is nonsensical.

My own interest in the case centres largely around the communal and societal rules that pervaded Victorian life and how everyday life was navigated by so many people. Sometimes even on a bad day I will read about the existence people lived then and thank my lucky stars I was born a century later (1987).

[Pcdunn]

The case involving Endacott and Miss Cass was interesting reading on its own as an illustration of the police's attitude towards single women. There is additional interest in the magistrate's decree that Regent Street was off limits for any respectable woman after ten p.m. (He would have fit in well in today's Iran among their religious fundamentalists.)

I do think something shifty was going on with Endacott, but it may have been as simple as he wanted to keep his record for arresting prostitutes high. I think some of the "witnesses" who seemed to simply vanish may have been paid, but later changed their minds about testifying in the full investigation.

As for Endacott as a Ripper suspect? Well, there isn't enough evidence. He does seem to have a "hatred of prostitutes", but that is scarcely enough.

While I have little doubt the "policeman as serial killer" theory will prove popular with some of the general public, (due to recent changes in attitudes toward police in general), we should be cautious about embracing this suspect theory.

[JeffHamm]

I agree. I would go further and suggest that at this juncture, even with new information the case cannot be solved. We have no clues bar witness statements which are often contradictory and 135 years of experience has shown us is far from satisfactory to solve a case. We have a general direction of travel of the killer if we believe the apron was dropped in Goulston Street after the Mitre Square murder. That is literally it. How anyone can suggest solving the crimes now is nonsensical.

My own interest in the case centres largely around the communal and societal rules that pervaded Victorian life and how everyday life was navigated by so many people. Sometimes even on a bad day I will read about the existence people lived then and thank my lucky stars I was born a century later (1987).

I agree with you, though I'm reluctant to say it cannot be solved simply because stranger things have happened, but I wouldn't bet any amount, no matter how small, on it happening. My own interests primarily lie in working out the events on the given nights, which in my view end up being foggy at best and we are left with a "tree" of possibilities, branching at points where various alternatives remain when only one of them can be true. Sadly, if we can't even narrow down what happened and when, the idea of building outwards to the who is just uncalled for in my opinion. Thankfully, not everyone takes that view, and discussions are more interesting because of it. One thing I think can be useful is to apply the types of information we have learned since 1888, whether it be medical, analytical, or investigative, in order to try and evaluate the statements and opinions of the day. In my view, I've generally been impressed with how well the witness statements mesh together more often than not. Doesn't make them correct, or true, of course, but it means we often do not have a reason to disbelieve them either (again, left with branches of a tree, rather than a single path to follow).

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

I agree with you, though I'm reluctant to say it cannot be solved simply because stranger things have happened, but I wouldn't bet any amount, no matter how small, on it happening. My own interests primarily lie in working out the events on the given nights, which in my view end up being foggy at best and we are left with a "tree" of possibilities, branching at points where various alternatives remain when only one of them can be true. Sadly, if we can't even narrow down what happened and when, the idea of building outwards to the who is just uncalled for in my opinion. Thankfully, not everyone takes that view, and discussions are more interesting because of it. One thing I think can be useful is to apply the types of information we have learned since 1888, whether it be medical, analytical, or investigative, in order to try and evaluate the statements and opinions of the day. In my view, I've generally been impressed with how well the witness statements mesh together more often than not. Doesn't make them correct, or true, of course, but it means we often do not have a reason to disbelieve them either (again, left with branches of a tree, rather than a single path to follow).

- Jeff

Yes there is a dearth of information unavailable to us that has been lost through the years which is unfortunate of course. There can be no question we only have a small part of the picture and this can lead to aspects not making sense or incidents appearing puzzling. This is to be expected but of course it leaves the door open to conspiracy theories and such like. My own starting point is the acceptance that we do not hold all the information and that any attempt at 'solving' the case is futile. I think the best we can do at this stage is analyse the witness statements and attempt to reconstruct the nights in question as to the best of our knowledge although as we know even that is not simple and can cause a lot of debate. I have seen your videos on YouTube in regards timeliness on the nights in question and they have been excellent.

I often think of the Yorkshire Ripper case. All cases are different but one aspect always stands out to me. Say for instance the case had not been solved and someone had happened upon Andrew Laptew's personal notebook or even his referral of Peter Sutcliffe for further investigation after he had interviewee him. He would look an outstanding suspect- the right age, a gap in his teeth, a ringer for a couple of photofits, local, a truck driver and someone known to frequent prostitutes. These were all aspects of the case known about the killer. However if we then found Sutcliffe's file we would see he had been interviewed multiple times and had always been able to supply alibis for the nights of the murders. We would likely have to dismiss him as not related to the case. 135 years from the JTR killings I would have to say very few stranger things have happened than that.

[Aethelwulf]

I often think of the Yorkshire Ripper case. All cases are different but one aspect always stands out to me. Say for instance the case had not been solved and someone had happened upon Andrew Laptew's personal notebook or even his referral of Peter Sutcliffe for further investigation after he had interviewee him. He would look an outstanding suspect- the right age, a gap in his teeth, a ringer for a couple of photofits, local, a truck driver and someone known to frequent prostitutes. These were all aspects of the case known about the killer. However if we then found Sutcliffe's file we would see he had been interviewed multiple times and had always been able to supply alibis for the nights of the murders. We would likely have to dismiss him as not related to the case. 135 years from the JTR killings I would have to say very few stranger things have happened than that.

As I've mentioned before, I think a lot of what you've written here is very sensible, although I believe it is a fairly accurate description of what we know of Bury. If it wasn't for Hasting's work on Bury we would know absolutely nothing about his movements and how he always seemed to be missing from home on the nights in question and acting suspiciously, and how the police investigated him, and at some level very strongly suspected him. We wouldn't know things like:

‘The police established that he was missing from his lodgings on the night Mary Kelly was done to death and that he was in the habit of carrying that knife around with him. His description was very much like that of the man who had been speaking to Kelly on the night of the crime.’

e.g., I find the simialrity below too specific to belive Bury didn't kill Eddowes - this is also most likely the night he 'absented himself in the most suspcious manner and the behaviour and physical description of BS is very similar to Bury:

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Not that I want to turn this into a Bury thread, but there are things you have written about Sutcliffe that seem so obvious to us now, but he was overlooked for so long, that is very simialr to how most people view Bury IMO.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I often think of the Yorkshire Ripper case. All cases are different but one aspect always stands out to me. Say for instance the case had not been solved and someone had happened upon Andrew Laptew's personal notebook or even his referral of Peter Sutcliffe for further investigation after he had interviewee him. He would look an outstanding suspect- the right age, a gap in his teeth, a ringer for a couple of photofits, local, a truck driver and someone known to frequent prostitutes. These were all aspects of the case known about the killer. However if we then found Sutcliffe's file we would see he had been interviewed multiple times and had always been able to supply alibis for the nights of the murders. We would likely have to dismiss him as not related to the case. 135 years from the JTR killings I would have to say very few stranger things have happened than that.

I believe Sonia Sutcliffe gave her husband an alibi for at least one of the murders . Did she know he was the ripper ? Probably not, but it helped him evade justice at least for a while.
My own feeling is that Jack was a local and was probably interviewed, with perhaps someone like PC Laptew having suspicions against him [ the lull in October or after MJK, perhaps both ]. He may have been given an alibi by someone close to him, not because they were shielding the ripper but because they didn't want to believe the worst and believed him innocent, or were suspicious that the police were trying to fit their family member/friend up, or both. Also we can only narrow the time of death down for some of the murders. We are still arguing today what time it was when Mary and Annie, for instance were murdered. So someone could have given Jack an alibi for say Mary's murder in the morning when she was killed at 4 am or vice versa.
Also lets look at the witness evidence , Hutchinson for example described a well to do Jew , but lets suppose his evidence isn't reliable and Jack was more say rough looking , someone say like Blotchy . And of course we have a chief suspect earlier on in Pizer. Either could have allayed someones fears at the start or the end of the crimes that their husband/father/brother etc was the ripper and alleviated any potential fears that there might be a time gap in the alibi or if they weren't 100% sure of said time. . IE Jack is a mad, or well to do Jew so it can't be my gentile brother. Or Annie was killed at 2 am so it can't be my husband Jacob who didn't leave the house that morning until 4:30 am.
And last the victims themselves. I personally believe the police at the time believed the C5 and Martha were murdered by the ripper [ as I do ] . But what if that is wrong ? And say Liz was killed by someone else when Jack did have an alibi . Again that could have helped dispel someones fears about a suspect. .
That's not to say I believe Jack was given an alibi for one or more of the murders or someone close to him had suspicions against him, but it could be a possibility.
Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

pretty much agree with what everyone has said re tje case probably not going to be solved at this point, but in terms of pure evidence it seems that bury and perhaps koz is about as close as well get.
bury based on his background and crimes and koz on the the possible witness ID.
If any evidence comes to light of bury being physically connected to any of the ripper victims it would be game over for me.
Barring that, it would probably take someone finding an old trunk in an attic somewhere containing physical evidence and or a confession to finally solve it.and or if any writing where one of the suspects spells the word juwes.

[JeffHamm]

Yes there is a dearth of information unavailable to us that has been lost through the years which is unfortunate of course. There can be no question we only have a small part of the picture and this can lead to aspects not making sense or incidents appearing puzzling. This is to be expected but of course it leaves the door open to conspiracy theories and such like. My own starting point is the acceptance that we do not hold all the information and that any attempt at 'solving' the case is futile. I think the best we can do at this stage is analyse the witness statements and attempt to reconstruct the nights in question as to the best of our knowledge although as we know even that is not simple and can cause a lot of debate. I have seen your videos on YouTube in regards timeliness on the nights in question and they have been excellent.

I often think of the Yorkshire Ripper case. All cases are different but one aspect always stands out to me. Say for instance the case had not been solved and someone had happened upon Andrew Laptew's personal notebook or even his referral of Peter Sutcliffe for further investigation after he had interviewee him. He would look an outstanding suspect- the right age, a gap in his teeth, a ringer for a couple of photofits, local, a truck driver and someone known to frequent prostitutes. These were all aspects of the case known about the killer. However if we then found Sutcliffe's file we would see he had been interviewed multiple times and had always been able to supply alibis for the nights of the murders. We would likely have to dismiss him as not related to the case. 135 years from the JTR killings I would have to say very few stranger things have happened than that.

Hi Sunny Delight,

Thanks. I think the simulations help consolidate the witness statements into an easy format, they are just estimates and show that what we've been told is possible and makes a coherent story. As such, they can't be dismissed, but at the same time, it doesn't mean it's all true. Sadly, it doesn't work that way. Still, I find it to be one (and certainly not the only) approach available to us that allows us to independently "verify" the plausibility of witness statements, and suggest which aspects might be less reliable than others. So far, most of the time the statements seem to hold together as a set pretty well.

But I get your drift, and yes, I like your Sutcliff example. A century on, we would be left with things like his wife's alibi, and without anything to suggest she lied, we would be left wondering and unable to solve it and I'm sure there would be those arguing both sides.

I keep hoping the missing suspect file will get returned. I don't think it would immediately solve the case, but it would be interesting information, particularly if it contains information about how various suspects were eliminated. Knowing the extent of the police investigations into a "suspect" would be very helpful to us. It would allow us to evaluate our confidence with regards to how they followed up on and came to their conclusions. We often presume the police of the day either dug deep into every detail, or the polar opposite, that they did little more than ask the suspect where they were and never looked into it. I rather suspect the truth lies between those two extremes, but where in between is the question.

- Jeff