"Crime Scene" Sketch.

[sleekviper]

Hello Lynn!
Hope that all is well, has been a summer, "From Hell". I do think that I have roasted my insides; metal, instead of bone and skull, and 100 plus degree days do not mix well at all. Anyway, maybe somebody spotted him popping out from that exit(or he assumed that they had)and thought to himself,"Well curse the luck! They will say I am Jewish now! I better set this right as soon as possible!" Of course in a twisted mind, saying "I am not Jewish" comes out as the chalk scribble. Not really, but the image just popped into my head.

[Monty]

The Scotsman
1 October 1888


THE WORK OF IDENTIFICATION

During yesterday the police thoroughly searched the empty houses in Mitre Street, and also the yard where the body was found, and took up a grating near the spot where the woman was found. Nothing, however, in the shape of a weapon was found, nor did the investigations lead to anything likely to throw light upon the matter. The public were not admitted to the square until late in the afternoon, after an official plan of the square had been made for production at the inquest.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Sure- most likely- I agree- but still possible. 4 exits. Out of the FRONT of one of the houses onto Mitre Street. With Watkins IN Mitre Square. Out through the in door.

Now I ask you something. You quote, the Star to back the reverse beat theory. The Star is widely regarded in this genre as the most untrustworthy of the daily newspapers.
Your views therefore on the Times Inquest report, re Harvey's testimony? And is there another newspaper to back up those times quoted?

many thanks

Phil

Nice use of deflection there Phil,

Do you, or Trevor, think I am going to do all his York research and reveal all my sources?

Nice effort, however Im not THAT green.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Nice use of deflection there Phil,

Do you, or Trevor, think I am going to do all his York research and reveal all my sources?

Nice effort, however Im not THAT green.

Monty

Hey Monty I dont need you to do my York research its all been done and dusted and put together weeks ago, especially with you in mind

[Monty]

I'm flattered Trevor,

Shame I won't be seeing it.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Nice use of deflection there Phil,

Do you, or Trevor, think I am going to do all his York research and reveal all my sources?

Nice effort, however Im not THAT green.

Monty

Hello Monty,

I originlally asked the question generally actually- then asked you specifically.
I have nothing to do with Trevor's York presentation. And what's more know nothing of it!

You may not be green- but the wrong end of the bat you hold sir!

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

G S G

Hello Joe. Thanks. I have often tried to understand the GSG, but to no avail. Quite ambiguous.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

I originlally asked the question generally actually- then asked you specifically.
I have nothing to do with Trevor's York presentation. And what's more know nothing of it!

You may not be green- but the wrong end of the bat you hold sir!

Best wishes

Phil

Never said you did know about Trevors presentation, merely stated Im not laying all my cards on the table.

The bat is fine where it is thanks.

Monty

[sleekviper]

Good day Lynn,
I think, that is the point really. If someone writes a message that is easy to understand, one that the average person can quickly take note and piece together, they also may take note of the person doing the writing. However, if the message is somewhat cryptic, no need to notice details of the writer; just some illiterate drunk that found chalk, and not a second thought about it. But just a guess as usual.

[lynn cates]

incoherent

Hello Joe. Thanks. I suppose that is what drives me to a similar conclusion. If someone wished to send a message, why not send a coherent one?

Cheers.
LC

[sleekviper]

Well if they had, perhaps we either do not know, which means it was not revealed in the medium that he chose, or was not revealed at the time of the graffiti writing. One of the greatest tools that would have been at the disposal of the police would have been emotions. Emotions lead to mistakes; let him think he is far better than he is, no need to be so careful, or so quiet. Frustration, anger, pride, anything to get a response that leads to a mistake. Problem with this case is someone is either not falling for it, and sending back a puzzle as confusing as the information being laid out about the case, or not much more than one victim to a killer. That is if the graffiti were actually from the killer of Eddowes. We only know what the Police revealed basically, and it would be highly unlikely that every bit of information was exactly as it was, and revealed. Having people go quiet for months or years is the last thing they want, and start showing all the cards exactly as you get the evidence is bound to scare someone underground. So a smart killer playing back a tweaked message after his first had been tweaked to the public, a one off writing some garble that makes as much sense as Son of Sam and his talking dog, a response to a message sent but never revealed, or a combination. Or, just sending a message that he thought could be understood, but over estimated intelligence for 124 years and counting; so was trying to make sure if spotted they would not remember the writer as much more than a fool with chalk, or simply figured with time it would make sense. That graffiti, to me, is about the most universal piece of evidence to this case, and can be tied in to more theories than anything else known. Kind of draw the line with aliens, ghosts, and people out of the country, but can pretty much apply to most without much question. Without a picture, handwriting can't be known, so the message can work in about anyone's interpretation. As usual, just me; something this important with so much trouble establishing a true value, poor Warren.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Mind if I quote you from 2005?

"I must admit that my research is taken from the Met police rather than the City. However, I see no reason why procedures and regulations should alter differently between the two forces. Without going into too much detail, here are a few pieces of information that may help.

Each beat is given a number. These are numbered in a register. This register can be referred to at any time. A beat PC is allocated a beat once he arrives for beat duty. Just to avoid possible corruption, the beat PCs will be shifted from one beat to another after a period of time. The period of time being the at beat Sergeants disgression.

The register shows each street, road, square, etc on each particular beat and the time taken to patrol it. Apparently the rate was 2 and half miles per hour.

A beat Sergeant is in charge of a section of beats and the PCs patrolling it. To make sure the beat PCs are conducting themselves correctly and are on time he also patrols the beats on his section.

Most beats are patrolled in a loop. Start at Street X and return to street X. A left handed beat means that the beat PC takes more left handed turns than right. The same obviously goes for a right-handed beat. Now to confuse criminals and possibly prostitutes the beat Sergeant, when giving out the beats, will give the order to reverse the beat. This seems to be the case with Watkins on the night of Eddowes murder. He clearly stated he was patrolling left handed that night and made a point of telling the Star reporter this. As he was supposed to be on duty at 9.45pm and be up and running with his beat at 10pm, anyone who was ‘studying’ his beat had to be checking this out from 9.45pm. So anyone who feels Jack studied timings must realise that he would have studied them on the night of his attacks, if he took such precautions.

Watkins also stated in the Star that he sometimes exits the square via Church passage. I feel this to be an error because Church passage was Harveys domain. However, a possibility of an exit via St James passage is viable simply because that was his jurisdiction. Also to be noted, Watkins calls this beat his regular beat. Which indicates that though he completed other beats, this was the one he was most familiar with. "

my highlighting and emphasis.

So, as I see it, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, you have The Scotsman telling us that the houses were searched at some time (not stated) "yesterday", The Daily Star to tell us that Watkins told them it was a "left handed beat" and the Met Police way of doing things, not necessarily the City Police?.. but that you "see no reason why it wouldn't be done the same way". You also say "possibly" done to confuse prostitutes as well. You surmise on the basis of logical reasoning. But evidence?

You quote Watkins again saying that he "sometimes" left the Square via Church Passage. Ahh.. following Harvey up the garden path eh? Thank goodness I don't read a sniff of a murderer in that....

I'm not taking the mickey, not causing trouble and not out for a fight.. but as you say, "C-mon" Monty , if you haven't got more than that lot up your sleeve, including a Press report from possibly the most unreliable Daily in England in 1888, Watkin's supposed own words admitting to changing his beat off his own bat, then we are really scratching.

What the Met do, or did, is NOT any balance of certainty to what the City did THAT night. Unless you have anything else to substantiate the claim that the beats were reversed? I look forward to the evidence. Please do show the community? Thank you.

And no.. I'm not bowling a wrong 'un this time either. It's a straight ball, seams a little, moves away in the air and comes in off the pitch. Watch out for the back of the hand slower rotation.

In other words, it's a straight question. I'd be most obliged if you would answer it. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Mind if I quote you from 2005?

"I must admit that my research is taken from the Met police rather than the City. However, I see no reason why procedures and regulations should alter differently between the two forces. Without going into too much detail, here are a few pieces of information that may help.

Each beat is given a number. These are numbered in a register. This register can be referred to at any time. A beat PC is allocated a beat once he arrives for beat duty. Just to avoid possible corruption, the beat PCs will be shifted from one beat to another after a period of time. The period of time being the at beat Sergeants disgression.

The register shows each street, road, square, etc on each particular beat and the time taken to patrol it. Apparently the rate was 2 and half miles per hour.

A beat Sergeant is in charge of a section of beats and the PCs patrolling it. To make sure the beat PCs are conducting themselves correctly and are on time he also patrols the beats on his section.

Most beats are patrolled in a loop. Start at Street X and return to street X. A left handed beat means that the beat PC takes more left handed turns than right. The same obviously goes for a right-handed beat. Now to confuse criminals and possibly prostitutes the beat Sergeant, when giving out the beats, will give the order to reverse the beat. This seems to be the case with Watkins on the night of Eddowes murder. He clearly stated he was patrolling left handed that night and made a point of telling the Star reporter this. As he was supposed to be on duty at 9.45pm and be up and running with his beat at 10pm, anyone who was ‘studying’ his beat had to be checking this out from 9.45pm. So anyone who feels Jack studied timings must realise that he would have studied them on the night of his attacks, if he took such precautions.

Watkins also stated in the Star that he sometimes exits the square via Church passage. I feel this to be an error because Church passage was Harveys domain. However, a possibility of an exit via St James passage is viable simply because that was his jurisdiction. Also to be noted, Watkins calls this beat his regular beat. Which indicates that though he completed other beats, this was the one he was most familiar with. "

my highlighting and emphasis.

So, as I see it, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, you have The Scotsman telling us that the houses were searched at some time (not stated) "yesterday", The Daily Star to tell us that Watkins told them it was a "left handed beat" and the Met Police way of doing things, not necessarily the City Police?.. but that you "see no reason why it wouldn't be done the same way". You also say "possibly" done to confuse prostitutes as well. You surmise on the basis of logical reasoning. But evidence?

You quote Watkins again saying that he "sometimes" left the Square via Church Passage. Ahh.. following Harvey up the garden path eh? Thank goodness I don't read a sniff of a murderer in that....

I'm not taking the mickey, not causing trouble and not out for a fight.. but as you say, "C-mon" Monty , if you haven't got more than that lot up your sleeve, including a Press report from possibly the most unreliable Daily in England in 1888, Watkin's supposed own words admitting to changing his beat off his own bat, then we are really scratching.

What the Met do, or did, is NOT any balance of certainty to what the City did THAT night. Unless you have anything else to substantiate the claim that the beats were reversed? I look forward to the evidence. Please do show the community? Thank you.

And no.. I'm not bowling a wrong 'un this time either. It's a straight ball, seams a little, moves away in the air and comes in off the pitch. Watch out for the back of the hand slower rotation.

In other words, it's a straight question. I'd be most obliged if you would answer it. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

Phil,

So, as I see it, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, you have The Scotsman telling us that the houses were searched at some time (not stated) "yesterday",

Yes, note the date of The Scotsmans report.

The Daily Star to tell us that Watkins told them it was a "left handed beat" and the Met Police way of doing things, not necessarily the City Police?.. but that you "see no reason why it wouldn't be done the same way".

No, not the Daily Star, it is The Star.

You also say "possibly" done to confuse prostitutes as well. You surmise on the basis of logical reasoning. But evidence?

You are clearly quoting me from 2005, when I had no researching experience with regards the City of London Force. This, if I may say, is rather unfair and for you, unfortunate. However Im not going to explain why its unfortunate, as is my prerogative.

The issue I have is this.

I am not obliged to answer your question. To provide my evidence will be to the detriment of my work and is something I am not prepared to do just now. I am fully aware that in doing that there will be an inference I cannot provide the necessary evidence. I am fully aware of that and can live with it. In fact Im quite happy with that to be honest.

Yep, that means I am aware of something you are not (well, apart from Rob) and Im afraid the Community will just have to trust me on this one, just as they had to last time with the wall writing photo, so they will have to this time.

I do not have to justify myself to you, or anyone, especially not at the click of your fingers.

Kindly yours

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Watkins also stated in the Star that he sometimes exits the square via Church passage. I feel this to be an error because Church passage was Harveys domain. However, a possibility of an exit via St James passage is viable simply because that was his jurisdiction. Also to be noted, Watkins calls this beat his regular beat. Which indicates that though he completed other beats, this was the one he was most familiar with.




You quote Watkins again saying that he "sometimes" left the Square via Church Passage. Ahh.. following Harvey up the garden path eh? Thank goodness I don't read a sniff of a murderer in that....

An Addition to the above.. the quote from Watkins to the Star, herewith..

"Police-constable Watkins, the man in question, was on duty there, and no more conscientious officer is in the force. His inspector speaks of him in the highest terms. He was on duty on the same beat last night, and a Star man went carefully over the same ground covered by him on the preceding night. "I was working left-handed last night," said the police officer. "Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do,

Monty, you state yourself that you feel that Watkins must be mistaken in saying that he sometimes went up Church Passage. This is incorrect. Watkins states that he sometimes goes into Mitre Square FROM Church passage. Not out of it.

Also, please note the next line.

" It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square."

This is completely wrong.. it would not take Watkins about 14 minutes to walk from the turning into Mitre Street (which MUST be the "next corner") into the square. He stated at the inquest he entered the Square at about 1.44.

Later on the Star reporter asks Watkins..

"Did you recognise the situation at once?"

He answered..

"Well, I can tell you it didn't take me a moment to see that the Whitechapel murderer had been our way. Her head lay here on this coal-hole," said he, throwing the light of his lantern on it, "and her clothes were thrown up breast-high. But the first thing I noticed was that she was ripped up like a pig in the market. There was the big gash up the stomach, the entrails torn out and flung in a heap about her neck; some of them appeared to be lying in the ugly cut at the throat, and the face - well, there was no face. Anyone who knew the woman alive would never recognise her by her face. I have been in the force a long while, but I never saw such a sight. I went at once to Dr. Sequeira and some of the others rushed off to the station house."

Lying in a coal hole? That's a new one on me.. not mentioned at the inquest was it?

"Flung" about her neck? Not "placed", as we are given indication of at the inquest by a witness?

Entrails lying in the ugly cut in the throat?

Watkins went to Dr Sequiera? That's new. I thought Holland did.

but the best one..

Anyone who knew the woman alive would never recognise her by her face.

The question is.. how did John Kelly recognise her face then?

And this is the newspaper that you quote the reverse beat story? The article is full of rubbish from start to finish. Well, unless the inquest info was all made up that is.

Here's more of it... the Star report of the same day.. spot the boo boos.

"NO PART OF THE BODY WAS MISSING.

The following is a description of the murdered woman - Age 40, hazel eyes, auburn hair; dressed in a black jacket, with fur trimming and large metal buttons, dark green chintz with Michaelmas daisies and golden lily pattern skirt, drab linsey underskirt, blue-ribbed stockings, mended white; black straw bonnet trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet.



A Bloody Apron Found.

After committing the second murder, the man seems to have gone back towards the scene of the former. An apron, which is thought by the police to belong to the woman found in Mitre-square, as it was the same material as part of her dress was found in Goldstar-street. It was smeared with blood, and had been evidently carried away by the murderer to wipe his hands with.

One of the doctors in an interview with a Star reporter, after describing the various wounds, said the woman belonged to the very poorest class. She appeared to be an outcast, and carried her tea and sugar about with her. She was very thin. "I should say, from the fact that her hands were brown, that she had just come from the country - had been hop picking, perhaps. I think she was an Irish woman."

"Does the form of her features make you think so?"

"No, but because

SHE CARRIED A PIPE."
"The woman's throat," continued the doctor, "had first been cut, and it had been cut while the woman was on the ground. How do I know that? Because there was no blood in front."

"Do you think that the murderer was a skilled man?"

"He had some knowledge of how to use a knife. The knife which he used must have been very sharp."

"How long would it have taken him to mutilate the body as you found it?"

"At least five minutes."

The murderer must have, therefore, entered the square about five minutes after the policeman had passed through, and left it five minutes before he returned.

The clothing of the woman was very thin and bare. No money was found upon her, but the following articles were in the pockets of her dress:- A short clay pipe and an old cigarette case; a matchbox, an old pocket handkerchief, a knife which bore no traces of blood, and a small packet of tea and sugar, such as poor people who frequent common lodging-houses are in the habit of carrying.

A Star reporter saw Dr. J. G. Sequiera, 34, Jewry-street, who was the first medical man on the spot. "I was there," he said, "about 10 minutes after the policeman found the body. The woman could not have been dead more than a quarter of an hour. The work had been quickly done." "

my emphasis


Just a thought about Dr Sequiera. if he was there "about 10 mins after the policeman found the body".. that makes him there at "about" 1.55am. The body, according to Sequiera, could not have been dead more than 15 mins. That's max. making earliest t.o.d is 1.40am. If the earliest t.o.d is correct, and it took 5 mins to do the deed, guess what? 1.35am. And guess who's at the end of Church Passage checking Mitre Square then? Harvey. AFTER 1.35 wasn't it?

But this is the Star. As you can see, totally unreliable.

Just a few examples of how poor the paper is.


best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,



Yes, note the date of The Scotsmans report.



No, not the Daily Star, it is The Star.



You are clearly quoting me from 2005, when I had no researching experience with regards the City of London Force. This, if I may say, is rather unfair and for you, unfortunate. However Im not going to explain why its unfortunate, as is my prerogative.

The issue I have is this.

I am not obliged to answer your question. To provide my evidence will be to the detriment of my work and is something I am not prepared to do just now. I am fully aware that in doing that there will be an inference I cannot provide the necessary evidence. I am fully aware of that and can live with it. In fact Im quite happy with that to be honest.

Yep, that means I am aware of something you are not (well, apart from Rob) and Im afraid the Community will just have to trust me on this one, just as they had to last time with the wall writing photo, so they will have to this time.

I do not have to justify myself to you, or anyone, especially not at the click of your fingers.

Kindly yours

Monty

My My what a turn of phrase.. "click of your fingers"?

I didn't. I respectfully asked. That's all.. A straight question with no malice aforethought.

Now if you had bothered to tell us that you had the answer but were in the PROCESS of processing it for a new article to be revealed... then I wouldn't have asked! But playing cat and mouse and not talking straight gets you into this situation.

I respect the fact you are working on it. However, whether it is from 2005, 2007 or 2009.. the point is that as to this KNOWN minute, apart from you and Rob, it is evidence that is unproven, based on a very dodgy Star report.

I hope the 2005 thing doesn't mean that we have to ignore a lot of your work from that time, which was excellent.

I wish you the best of luck with the work.

best wishes

Phil