Could Bury have been the Batty Street Lodger?

[jerryd]

If one fails to believe the Packer grape story, then one will also fail to believe the Batty Street Lodger story. They both originated from the same source. Legrand and Batchelor.

[Abby Normal]

thanks Jerry and El!
that pretty much settles it. oh well. would be a cool name for a band though.. The Batty Street Lodgers

[Aethelwulf]

Did not Rob House show that the stories commonly associated with Batty Street were inaccurate?

In his work, "the case for Scotland yards prime suspect" , he produced the original press reports, that were significantly different from the common account.

Mrs Kuer, while letting out rooms was also a laundress, the shirt apparently had been left with her, not by a lodger, but by a local man.
A master tailor, with connections to West End fashion houses. The shirt was not his, but that of a friend who had cut himself, while trimming his corn.

Who do we know who had a connection to a master tailor Who lived locally to Batty street, with connections to West End fashion houses?

I am a little surprised that the lodger story is still being treated seriously given the work.bwork.by House.

Steve

Thanks El, haven't read that book.

From what I can see of Bromley's essay, it's far from certain the lodger and the washer man are the same. From Bromley's essay below (the last point is particularity interesting I think):

A Press representative had an interview, yesterday, with the landlady of the house, 22, Batty-street, Whitechapel, which place was alleged to be the resort of the owner of the blood-stained shirt. The lodging-house is kept by a German woman, the wife of a seaman. She denied that the man for whom the police were searching was one of her lodgers, and asserted that he simply had his washing done at the house. He was a ladies tailor, working for a West-end house, and did not reside in the Leman-street district. She explained the presence of blood on the shirt by saying that it was owing to an accident that occurred to a man (other than the one taken into custody) who was living on the premises

The landlady, here described as being the wife of a seaman, now said that the man being sought was not a lodger, but someone who had his washing done at her house. Further reports would refer to her as a laundress. The man was said to be a ladies tailor and did not live in the area. She referred to someone being taken into custody but, importantly, said that this man was not the one responsible for getting the blood on the shirt.

However, the most important detail here is that the landlady said that the customer who brought the clothes was not responsible for getting the blood on the shirt. This raises the question as to why the customer was arrested. If he was not responsible for getting the blood on the shirt, why would he be arrested?

So the story about the customer, even if true, is irrelevant in that it was someone ‘living on the premises’ who was responsible for getting blood on the shirt. That the man ‘was living on the premises’ may imply he was no longer living there, possibly supporting the theory that there was still a missing lodger.

Also to consider is the fact that this report does not account for the original story about a lodger disturbing the landlady in the early hours. A customer is not going to leave his shirts in the early hours. Nor does it account for the fact that the landlady noticed the man had changed his clothes.

[Elamarna]

Thanks El, haven't read that book.

From what I can see of Bromley's essay, it's far from certain the lodger and the washer man are the same. From Bromley's essay below (the last point is particularity interesting I think):

A Press representative had an interview, yesterday, with the landlady of the house, 22, Batty-street, Whitechapel, which place was alleged to be the resort of the owner of the blood-stained shirt. The lodging-house is kept by a German woman, the wife of a seaman. She denied that the man for whom the police were searching was one of her lodgers, and asserted that he simply had his washing done at the house. He was a ladies tailor, working for a West-end house, and did not reside in the Leman-street district. She explained the presence of blood on the shirt by saying that it was owing to an accident that occurred to a man (other than the one taken into custody) who was living on the premises

The landlady, here described as being the wife of a seaman, now said that the man being sought was not a lodger, but someone who had his washing done at her house. Further reports would refer to her as a laundress. The man was said to be a ladies tailor and did not live in the area. She referred to someone being taken into custody but, importantly, said that this man was not the one responsible for getting the blood on the shirt.

However, the most important detail here is that the landlady said that the customer who brought the clothes was not responsible for getting the blood on the shirt. This raises the question as to why the customer was arrested. If he was not responsible for getting the blood on the shirt, why would he be arrested?

So the story about the customer, even if true, is irrelevant in that it was someone ‘living on the premises’ who was responsible for getting blood on the shirt. That the man ‘was living on the premises’ may imply he was no longer living there, possibly supporting the theory that there was still a missing lodger.

Also to consider is the fact that this report does not account for the original story about a lodger disturbing the landlady in the early hours. A customer is not going to leave his shirts in the early hours. Nor does it account for the fact that the landlady noticed the man had changed his clothes.

The in-depth reports, some of which you produce above, make no mention of a lodger, or of anyone changing clothes.

It's very clear that she denied the earlier press reports, yet I seems people are still prepared to accept these accounts over her denials, which contain far more detail than the earlier accounts.
Indeed she claimed she had only one lodger, and he was in no way connected to the shirt.

The whole issue with the Batty Street incident is there was a bloody shirt, and the it was left with Mrs Kuer.
It is I submit the lodger story that is totally irrelevant.
I would suggest that story of the lodger, of him disturbing her, is just that, a story. Hyped by the press, and inaccurate.

In my opinion it's another of the myths of Ripperology in my view, like the different knife in Berner Street ( simply not what Phillips or Blackwell said)but now quoted over and over

I have great respect for the work of Gavin Bromley, particularly in regards to timings, I have referenced much.of his work in my work and will continue to do so.
However, the later work by both House and Malcolm, strongly suggests that on this occassion he was incorrect.

But end of the day, we cannot agree on everything

Steve

[Aethelwulf]

Well it seems Bury as the Batty Street Lodger may be a dead end, and the story as a whole, although I would be hesitant to totally dismiss it just in case there is a nugget of truth in there. I assume Batty Street area would show up as an area worth screening on the geoprofile given its proximity to Berner Street.

Back to Bury, I think it is possible to narrow down his 'absenting himself in the most suspicious manner' to the double event night. That is because for both Chapman and Kelly, the statements are that he kept away from his lodgings, not that he was there and then left. Of those murders when it was known where he was staying, that only leaves Stride and Eddowes.

If Stride is considered a ripper victim, the ripper's actions are slightly different in time and nature (although it's unknown how the other murders actually began). The time is somewhat earlier and the rough treatment isn't reported (although it may have happened) for the other murders. Bury was seen to openly assault his wife in public and obviously felt to worries about doing this. More speculation, but perhaps Bury's leaving his lodgings in a most suspicious manner could be due to some personal event that lead him to be more careless in his approach with Stride.

Schwartz described the possible murderer as being around 30-years-old with a height of around 5 feet and 5 inches, fair complexion, dark hair, small brown moustache, with a full face and broad shouldered. This is a more than passable description of Bury - 29, 5"3 1/2 in boots, dark hair, fairer mustache, powerful chest.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Scott.

Just to be clear--Bromley suggested the lodger was Israel Schwartz.

I was remembering earlier postings on this site going back several years.

[barnflatwyngarde]

That's what some people have asked about John McInnis in the Bible John case.

Hi RJ,
. My understanding is that McInnes was put in an ID parade, but the witness didn't pick him out. Apparently some police thought that the particular witness who saw the killer was drunk, and therefore she got the identification wrong.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,
. My understanding is that McInnes was put in an ID parade, but the witness didn't pick him out. Apparently some police thought that the particular witness who saw the killer was drunk, and therefore she got the identification wrong.

Hi B--

Yes, I think you're right there, but I was actually thinking of the cab driver.

In the recent podcast, the detectives that reopened the investigation a second time could find no evidence that the cabby ever had a look at McInnis. In fact, according to the podcast, there are records showing that the cabby was with the police on the day that McInnis was taken in for an interview, but the cabby wasn't brought to the station. He was with the police elsewhere.

Of course, whether this was a conspiracy, or a ****-up is open to debate. It seemed to me that podcaster was trying to imply the latter--that the police had taken the cabby 'out of harm's way.'

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi B--

Yes, I think you're right there, but I was actually thinking of the cab driver.

In the recent podcast, the detectives that reopened the investigation a second time could find no evidence that the cabby ever had a look at McInnis. In fact, according to the podcast, there are records showing that the cabby was with the police on the day that McInnis was taken in for an interview, but the cabby wasn't brought to the station. He was with the police elsewhere.

Of course, whether this was a conspiracy, or a ****-up is open to debate. It seemed to me that podcaster was trying to imply the latter--that the police had taken the cabby 'out of harm's way.'

Thanks for this RJ.

Yeah, the taxi driver is an interesting part of the case, not entirely sure what to make of it.

I swear that this damn case is one of the most frustrating in criminological history. So many facts just seem to sit there in splendid isolation.

The fact that no definitive book has ever been written on the case is a major frustration, and it's difficult to understand why no top notch author ever had a go at it.

I posted about the Bible John case on a Zodiac thread (we got waylaid), and posted that my friend was in Strathclyde Police and he was adamant that MacInnes was the killer.

Someone will write a great book about this case one day. Do you know any established true crime authors that might be interested?