Lack of Threads

[John Wheat]

I suggest Bury strangled her to avoid any noise and a messy crime scene.

Based on what I've read so far I think it would be highly unlikely JTR starting ripping Polly before cutting her throat. She most definitely would've made some sort of loud noise for people to hear, and she would've been uncontrollable and noisier still.

Columbo

To Colombo

So why mutilate Ellen at all then?

Cheers John

[Columbo]

Hello Columbo,

>So 20 minutes past four? it took them half an hour to find Mizen?
For my own clarification I thought Cross had to be at work at 4am. Am I incorrect?<<

You are correct.

The Echo report of Mizen's appearance at the inquest is riddled with errors. It is why it should be viewed in context with all the other reports. And those other reports clearly identify Mizen's comments as referring to what he saw after he returned with the ambulance as Billiou has already noted.

Thank you sir. I will have to look at the Echo report with new eyes.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

Would anyone disagree with my other two comments?

>>The surroundings were crammed with PC:s and watchmen, and he would take a tremendeous risk by running.<<

Ergo, it was a tremendous risk to commit the murder at that spot and yet that's indisputably what happened.

It was this killer's modus operandi to take risks.


>>And still, the coroner said that given the amount of PC:s and watchmen in the vicinity, it was "nothing less than astonishing" that the killer could slip away.<<

According to the Times, what Baxter actually said was,

"It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

Which, of course, is completely different.

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

>So 20 minutes past four? it took them half an hour to find Mizen?
For my own clarification I thought Cross had to be at work at 4am. Am I incorrect?<<

You are correct.

The Echo report of Mizen's appearance at the inquest is riddled with errors. It is why it should be viewed in context with all the other reports. And those other reports clearly identify Mizen's comments as referring to what he saw after he returned with the ambulance as Billiou has already noted.

[drstrange169]

>Not on his first arrival at the scene, but after he had come back with the ambulance and had helped move the body.<<

Spot on!

[drstrange169]

Hello Billiou,

Who was telling the truth and who wasn't is a different issue and one I was not covering.

Fisherman wrote,
".. whenever somebody says that Paul spoke to Mizen, then that somebody is Lechmere."

That was an incorrect statement. I was just correcting it. No more no less.


>>Note: Every newspaper account opens Mizen's account with reporting that he said "a man" who was passing spoke to him.<<

Fisherman wrote,
"Mizen explicitely says that "a man" came up to him and spoke, and he never says that TWO men did. "

Again, Fisherman was incorrect. Mizen was never recorded using those words. It would be misleading if anyone thought that was a direct quote from Mizen.


>>"A journalist concocted phrase". I think "concocted" would be too strong a word. I believe, since nearly every newspaper uses the same term, that that is what Mizen must have said.<<

"...he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man ..."

is a third party summation, almost certainly, from a press agency piece, hence the duplication.

The newspapers that quoted Mizen in the first person naturally take precedence over that that paraphrased don't you think?

[Columbo]

You don't see the difference in murdering in his own home compared to murdering on the streets or in a whore's bedroom with a broken window? We're also assuming that the murder was premeditated, when in his own words he killed her in a drunken rage.

On top of that, if Bury HAD cut Ellen's throat, it would've definitely buggered up his accidental death defence.



Maybe Polly began to regain consciousness and this was the origin of the Ripper's throat-cutting?

I suggest Bury strangled her to avoid any noise and a messy crime scene.

Based on what I've read so far I think it would be highly unlikely JTR starting ripping Polly before cutting her throat. She most definitely would've made some sort of loud noise for people to hear, and she would've been uncontrollable and noisier still.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Had a prostitute been found dead on the streets of Whitechapel in January 1889 with wounds similar to Ellen Bury... what are the chances of her being considered among the canonicals?

None I don't think. She would've been closer to a Martha Tabram type victim.

But of course we know Ellen Bury's wounds were practical for disposal not for organ snatching like the others.

Columbo

[Harry D]

Had a prostitute been found dead on the streets of Whitechapel in January 1889 with wounds similar to Ellen Bury... what are the chances of her being considered among the canonicals?

[Shaggyrand]

Gotta disagree with you there. Smoking has always been a poor man's pleasure as well as high society. The only difference was the quality of tobacco available. these guys rolled there own, or piped it. Just like today they made allowances for their vices just like they did for their booze and women.

Columbo

I never said they didn't smoke because they were poor or that they didn't make allowances for it. I said it was culturally approached differently. People smoked considerably less. The average per capita intake was only the equivalent of about 60 cigarettes a year but rising steadily, eventually reaching 94 in 1910. It wasn't until 1920 that the number skyrocketed to 498 per year and kept increasing from there. That's when it became treated much like it is today (average smoker in the UK 795 a year, the US roughly 1,500). In 1888 cigarettes were still fairly expensive, the automated process having just started in 1884. So it was mostly pipes. Yes, there were cheaper blends but it was still a much lower intake by the average smoker. The only group that smoked in a way that is comparable to modern smokers were upper class cigar smokers and that would have been financially prohibitive for them to smoke heavily, no matter what allowances they made.

[Harry D]

... so he did not mind if she cried her heart out? Were the walls and windows isolated so as not to let any sound through?

You don't see the difference in murdering in his own home compared to murdering on the streets or in a whore's bedroom with a broken window? We're also assuming that the murder was premeditated, when in his own words he killed her in a drunken rage.

On top of that, if Bury HAD cut Ellen's throat, it would've definitely buggered up his accidental death defence.

Also, keep in mind that Polly Nichols seemingly had her abdomen cut BEFORE the neck was cut. Or so Llewellyn said, at least, but maybe we can drop that...?

Maybe Polly began to regain consciousness and this was the origin of the Ripper's throat-cutting?

[Columbo]

They didn't have to be nonsmokers. They could both have been great lovers of pipes and still not have had a match between them.
Smoking was different. It was more a luxury habit and not usually indulged more than a couple times a day for the majority of smokers. Pipes and cigars were mostly used at home or the pub. Tobacco consumption was on a steady rise since the automated cigarette machine had come along a few years earlier (roughly 5% a year in the UK) but the days of everyone smoking constantly and tobacco costing very little was still a couple decades off.

Gotta disagree with you there. Smoking has always been a poor man's pleasure as well as high society. The only difference was the quality of tobacco available. these guys rolled there own, or piped it. Just like today they made allowances for their vices just like they did for their booze and women.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hereīs what I think represents the real picture. Itīs from the Echo f the 3:rd:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So here it is established that Mizen spoke of the running blood in relation to when he arrived at the murder scene just after Neil. That was when the blood was running - which is of course the only really credible scenario.
I think that the same schedule holds true for the coagulated blood. Mizen said that it was "somewhat congealed", which fits in very well with the fact that blood starts to be visibly congealed after 3-4 minutes. It is then fully coagulated after around seven minutes, but if there is more running blood added all the time, it will be only "somewhat congealed".
When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, half an hour had passed, and the blood would have been as described by Thain: a large clot.

Hi Fisherman,

So 20 minutes past four? it took them half an hour to find Mizen?

For my own clarification I thought Cross had to be at work at 4am. Am I incorrect?

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Hereīs what I think represents the real picture. Itīs from the Echo f the 3:rd:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So here it is established that Mizen spoke of the running blood in relation to when he arrived at the murder scene just after Neil. That was when the blood was running - which is of course the only really credible scenario.
I think that the same schedule holds true for the coagulated blood. Mizen said that it was "somewhat congealed", which fits in very well with the fact that blood starts to be visibly congealed after 3-4 minutes. It is then fully coagulated after around seven minutes, but if there is more running blood added all the time, it will be only "somewhat congealed".
When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, half an hour had passed, and the blood would have been as described by Thain: a large clot.

If this is the "real story" then this statement (below) is all invention, correct?

Keep in mind that this statement was made by Paul on his way HOME from work. He'd run into Cross and Mizen on his way TO work that same day (Friday). So, while at work on Friday, he decided to cook up an elaborate and unflattering invention about Mizen's reaction and what he was told in Baker's Row. Why? He got bored at work and decided - for no reason - to focus on Mizen's reaction more so than the murder, the DEAD BODY he found lying in the street?

Let's take Cross/Lechmere out of the equation for a moment, as he is - in your scenario - Jack the Ripper. Let's deal only with Mizen and Paul. Of the two, who had a REASON to misrepresent what was said in Baker's Row? Paul or Mizen? The PC who - according to Paul - failed to react appropriately, continued calling people up, didn't say if he would go to Buck's Row at all or Paul, and represented a police force already under fire in print for lack of effectiveness? One thing cannot be debated: For Robert Paul we must INVENT any motivation or reason for his misrepresentation of his interaction with Mizen. Further, in Paul's telling we hear next to nothing about your murderer (Cross/Lechmere). He killed Nichols, hung around and enlisted Paul to help him cover it up, went with Paul to find Mizen, yet he made - seemingly - no impression on Paul whatsoever. AH! Not so of Mizen, however. He made QUITE an impression on Paul, didn't he? He inspired indignation, disappointment, and outrage, didn't he? Yet it's on HIS words you base your entire house of cards!



"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

[Fisherman]

Not on his first arrival at the scene, but after he had come back with the ambulance and had helped move the body.

Hereīs what I think represents the real picture. Itīs from the Echo f the 3:rd:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So here it is established that Mizen spoke of the running blood in relation to when he arrived at the murder scene just after Neil. That was when the blood was running - which is of course the only really credible scenario.
I think that the same schedule holds true for the coagulated blood. Mizen said that it was "somewhat congealed", which fits in very well with the fact that blood starts to be visibly congealed after 3-4 minutes. It is then fully coagulated after around seven minutes, but if there is more running blood added all the time, it will be only "somewhat congealed".
When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, half an hour had passed, and the blood would have been as described by Thain: a large clot.