Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Harvey enters Chuch Passage via Aldgate at that point there is a street lamp. There is a second street lamp outside Kearley and Tonge. As he is walking down that lamp would be shining in his eyes, so he would not be able to see anything or anybody ahead of him. When he got to the entrance to the square it would take a few moments for him to adjust his eyes back into the darkness of the square.

    The line of sight from my map indicates how much time the killer would have had to escape when first saw and heard Harvey coming towards him

    And as I have stated many times I do not belive the killer had sufficient time to do all that he is purported to have done

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Escaping into Mitre street would be risky.
    He would have to get out of that street vey quickly, while trying to avoid main roads, like Aldgate.
    So he may have to double back past the vicinity of the square - very risky.
    Church Passage is a much safer bet, is compatible with the strong hints we get from the City police, and supports the corroborated sighting by Mrs Lindsay.

    In the model I've presented (pretty sure the hiding location is not original to me), Jack has 6 minutes to do his work, possibly 7.
    How long do you suppose he would have required to do all he is purported to have done?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Macnaughten: This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square.
      There is supposedly something of a consensus, that Melville had confused Watkins or Harvey, near Mitre Square, with PC Smith, on Berner street.

      Note that M said near MS, not in, or within, or even outside.

      Irish Times, Oct 1:

      The police theory is that the man and woman who had [m]et in Aldgate watched the policeman pass round this square and then they entered it.
      ...
      None of the policemen on duty this morning appeared to have had particular attention drawn to the man and woman together. This appears strange at first, when it is remarked that within the last few weeks the police have been keeping a particularly keen watch upon suspicious couples.
      He wasn't confused at all.

      Jack and Kate walked hand-in-hand, under the cover of Jack's umbrella, until they reached the iron post at the entrance to Church Passage.
      They were witnessed by at least one constable, but were ignored because they looked just like romantic partners.
      Jack the Ripper at his cunning best.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        The next issue is the time at which the CPC were spotted. Lawende and Levy both testify that they got up to leave the club at 1:30, but they both estimate they waited a bit before doing so. Lawende estimated they were 5 minutes (making the sighting at 1:35), which is the time you're working with. However, Levey estimated they waited 3 or 4 minutes, which means we have to consider the sighting as occurring between 1:33 and 1:35. If your 3rd assumption, that Lawende's 5 minutes is the correct one, is wrong, then the 4 minutes you've calculated is too short by as much as 2 minutes (so you already have as much as 6 minutes).
        I don't think I am wrong though.
        Will leave discussion until next post...

        Next, you've made the assumption that the CPC wait for a minute after Lawende, Levey, and Harris pass them. The problem is, once they pass the CPC we don't know what the CPC did. That's when the clock starts ticking with respect to how much time is available (note, that's not to say they must have moved on right away, it's only pointing out that that is the beginning of the time at which they could have moved on - it's a very subtle, but important distinction). If the assumption that they waited a minute is wrong, and they waited less than that, then as much as another minute gets added to your time - so as much as 7 minutes is now available.

        You also made the assumption that it required the CPC a minute to walk from the end of Church Passage to the murder site. The distance is about 163 feet according to the map I posted a little while ago. The average walking speed is 3.1 mph, and at that speed it would take 36 seconds to traverse that distance, providing an additionl 24 seconds. A PC on patrol was expected to conduct their patrol at about 2.5 mph (which is why you'll see descriptions like "the slow tread of a PC", etc), and at that speed 44 seconds would be required, increasing your time by 16 seconds - admittedly not much, but given you're conclusion is that more time needs to be found, even these small additions become important. In order to take a full minute to walk that distance, the CPC would have to be travelling at about 1.85 mph, which would be unnaturally slow. So the maximum possible time available is probably between 7 minutes 16 seconds to 7 minutes 24 seconds, which you could get to simply by making a different assumption from the same set of data at each of the junctions above.
        I agree that some of these assumptions lean towards worst case scenarios (from JtR's PoV).
        Once the men go by the CPC, Jack is unsighted, so he might have to be conservative at that point.
        When walking into and across the square, I'm assuming great precaution is taken to minimize noise.
        Jack may have rubber souls, but Kate needs to tread quietly, and therefore slowly.
        No matter how many extra seconds we give them, however, I still think that multiple factors point to a Church Passage exit, and therefore a short period of hiding until Harvey is well on his way back to Duke St.

        And to be absolutely clear here, I'm not saying those assumptions are any more correct than the ones you've made - we don't know the correct choice at each of those decision points. Therefore, all we can do is look at the ranges we come to by exploring all of the different choices. And if by doing so, we find that the maximum time available is still less than the minimum time required, then we could conclude "more time has to be found". But if the maximum time available exceeds the minimum time required, then we cannot draw that conclusion safely.
        Sure, but of course these mins and maxes can only be estimated.
        As the time required is indeterminate, we should prefer whatever scenario is most compatible with Jack achieving what he did, all things considered.
        That means the hiding scenario should be preferred, as it maximizes time with the body.
        This scenario should also be preferred because it is most compatible with witness sightings, and because it provides the safest and most direct route to Goulston street.
        Also, there is one other possible advantage; by going out through Church Passage, Jack potentially has the opportunity to wipe hands and knife, on the apron half, without being obvious to anyone on the street.
        Is this the moment at which he encounters the second person of the L/S sighting, and who could that person possibly be?
        Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 03-25-2020, 05:58 AM.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          The next issue is the time at which the CPC were spotted. Lawende and Levy both testify that they got up to leave the club at 1:30, but they both estimate they waited a bit before doing so. Lawende estimated they were 5 minutes (making the sighting at 1:35), which is the time you're working with. However, Levey estimated they waited 3 or 4 minutes, which means we have to consider the sighting as occurring between 1:33 and 1:35. If your 3rd assumption, that Lawende's 5 minutes is the correct one, is wrong, then the 4 minutes you've calculated is too short by as much as 2 minutes (so you already have as much as 6 minutes).
          This issue is going to require a very careful read of the inquest testimonies, to resolve.
          Following quotes are from the Oct 12 papers.

          Daily News:

          Joseph Lawende - I live at No 25, Norfolk road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of the 29th I was in the Imperial Club, with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. We could not get home because it was raining. At half past one we left to go out, and left the house about five minutes later. We saw a man and a woman at the corner of Church passage, in Duck street, which leads to Mitre square.

          By what did you fix the time? - By seeing the club clock and my own watch. It was five minutes after the half hour when we came out, and to the best of my belief it was twenty five to two when we saw these persons.
          So Lawende says they exited the club at 1:35 - determined by seeing the club clock and his watch - and 'to the best of my belief it was twenty five to two when we saw these persons'.
          This doesn't sound quite right - didn't both events occur simultaneously, more or less?

          Was there anything about them or their movements that attracted your attention? - No, except that Mr. Levy said the court ought to be watched, and I took particular notice of a man and a woman talking there.
          This is after saying:

          The Coroner (to witness) - You have given a special description of this man to the police? - Yes. Do you think you would know him again? - I doubt it, sir.
          Interesting.

          Joseph Hyam Levy, sworn in Jewish fashion, said - I live at 1 Hutchinson street, Aldgate, and am a butcher. I was with the last witness and Harris at the Imperial Club on the 29th, and left with them about half past one. It might be about three or four minutes past the half hour when we came out. I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church passage, but I did not take any further notice of them, thinking that persons standing at that time in the morning in a dark passage were not up to much good. So I walked on. I was at home at twenty minutes to two.
          So Levy walked on.
          Does that mean he left Lawende and Harris, standing where they were, outside the club?

          Daily Telegraph:

          Lawende: The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me.
          Given that he was walking by them, why does he give a fixed distance?
          Wasn't he 10 feet, 9 feet, 8 feet,..., 9 feet, 10 feet,..., away from them?

          Levy: I went down Duke-street into Aldgate, leaving them still talking together.
          By 'them', he means the CPC - The Times says: He went on down Duke-street, into Aldgate, leaving the man and woman speaking together.
          However, evidently Levy goes off alone.
          Lawende and Harris must be standing still.

          Morning Advertiser:

          Lawende: The man and woman I saw standing together were about nine yards away from the club. Neither the man nor the woman appeared to be in an angry mood. There was nothing in their movements which attracted my attention except that the man was a rough looking fellow. The woman had her hand on the man's chest, but did not seem as if she was pushing him away. They were standing together conversing quietly, and I was not curious enough to look back and see where they went.
          Again, the fixed distance reference, implying he is in a stationary position.

          Levy: We left about three or four minutes past the half hour (half past one). I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church passage, but I passed on, and did not take any further notice of them. I walked along as fast as I could. I cannot give any description of either the man or the woman, but all I can say is that the man was about three inches taller than the woman. I walked along home, which I reached, I should think, by twenty minutes to two. I fix the time by the clock in the club.
          Levy definitely leaves the scene first.

          Levy: By a Juror - When I came out of the club I said to Mr. Harris, "Here, I'm off. I don't like the look of those people over there (alluding to the man and woman he saw.) I don't like going home by myself at this hour of the morning. I don't like passing that class of persons."
          One wonders what he is so apprehensive about.
          Also, if Levy has seen so little of the CPC, why is he subsequently so coy with the press?
          I think there is more to this event than we are led to believe.

          Anyway, this is the conclusion I reach from the above quotes:

          Once outside the club, the men dwell at a fixed position, on the pavement.
          This period starts at 1:33-34 - Levy's time, so to speak.
          All three men can see the CPC.
          Levy is not keen to hang around, so makes a few quick comments, and walks home rapidly (and Eddowes is dead by the time he arrives).
          Thus, Lawende and Harris are left talking together, on the club pavement.
          These two depart that location at ~1:35 - Lawende's time.
          So the 'dwell timespan' is approximately 90 seconds.
          Some seconds later, the CPC walk down Church Passage.

          This is a lot of detail to go into, to make an apparently small point.
          However, understanding this scene is critical to uncovering the identity of the Ripper.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            This issue is going to require a very careful read of the inquest testimonies, to resolve.
            Following quotes are from the Oct 12 papers.

            Daily News:



            So Lawende says they exited the club at 1:35 - determined by seeing the club clock and his watch - and 'to the best of my belief it was twenty five to two when we saw these persons'.
            This doesn't sound quite right - didn't both events occur simultaneously, more or less?



            This is after saying:



            Interesting.



            So Levy walked on.
            Does that mean he left Lawende and Harris, standing where they were, outside the club?

            Daily Telegraph:



            Given that he was walking by them, why does he give a fixed distance?
            Wasn't he 10 feet, 9 feet, 8 feet,..., 9 feet, 10 feet,..., away from them?



            By 'them', he means the CPC - The Times says: He went on down Duke-street, into Aldgate, leaving the man and woman speaking together.
            However, evidently Levy goes off alone.
            Lawende and Harris must be standing still.

            Morning Advertiser:



            Again, the fixed distance reference, implying he is in a stationary position.



            Levy definitely leaves the scene first.



            One wonders what he is so apprehensive about.
            Also, if Levy has seen so little of the CPC, why is he subsequently so coy with the press?
            I think there is more to this event than we are led to believe.

            Anyway, this is the conclusion I reach from the above quotes:

            Once outside the club, the men dwell at a fixed position, on the pavement.
            This period starts at 1:33-34 - Levy's time, so to speak.
            All three men can see the CPC.
            Levy is not keen to hang around, so makes a few quick comments, and walks home rapidly (and Eddowes is dead by the time he arrives).
            Thus, Lawende and Harris are left talking together, on the club pavement.
            These two depart that location at ~1:35 - Lawende's time.
            So the 'dwell timespan' is approximately 90 seconds.
            Some seconds later, the CPC walk down Church Passage.

            This is a lot of detail to go into, to make an apparently small point.
            However, understanding this scene is critical to uncovering the identity of the Ripper.
            Or, Levey and Lawende both noted the club clock at 1:30, when they got up, and have slightly different estimates of how long it was before the group of them left the club together, leaving us with something like 3-5 minutes to consider.

            Trying to fill in the blanks is still filling in blanks. Recognizing where the blanks are is, in my own personal view, more important than the stories we create to fill them. It's the blanks, the emptiness, that once recognized, become the black holes that suck in all the misinformation that has been thrown around JtR. What's left is minimal, but at least it survives, and so barring a complete misrepresentation of the true facts, that minimal presentation is as close to the truth as we're likely to get.

            Not everybody (ok, I admit it, very few, if any) agree with me that this is what we should be aiming for. But to me, truth, even if inconclusive, is better than a definite lie. (using lie for dramatic purposes here, as "falsehood" just sounds contrived - good god, only one day of self isolation and I'm already descending into stream of consciousness postings! Lord help us by the end of the month! ha ha)

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Levy's testimony is a bit odd to me.

              I was at the Imperial Club on the night in question with the last witness. We left about three or four minutes past the half hour (half past one). I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church passage, but I passed on, and did not take any further notice of them. I walked along as fast as I could. I cannot give any description of either the man or the woman, but all I can say is that the man was about three inches taller than the woman.
              So he sees the CPC, but passes on without taken any further notice of them.
              However, he also says:

              There was nothing in what I saw to suggest that the man was doing anything that was dangerous to the woman. Being a little deaf, I could not possibly have heard anything that was said.
              Apparently then, he does take an interest in the couple's behaviour, but unfortunately can't hear them talking.
              He doesn't like what sees:

              When I came out of the club I said to Mr. Harris, "Here, I'm off. I don't like the look of those people over there (alluding to the man and woman he saw.) I don't like going home by myself at this hour of the morning. I don't like passing that class of persons."
              So he is apprehensive about being around the CPC, given their looks, which also inform him of their social class.
              On the other hand, he oddly cannot make out something as simple as the colour of the woman's dress:

              On the night in question, however, there was not sufficient light to enable me to distinguish the colour of the dress which the woman was wearing.
              Hard to tell if Levy is interested in the CPC, or just wants to get out of there, and get home...

              I walked along home, which I reached, I should think, by twenty minutes to two. I fix the time by the clock in the club.
              What is interesting about this comment, is that he gives the estimated time he reaches his home.
              Why so?
              Because it is an irrelevant detail.
              Perhaps important to him on the night, but not to the coroner at the inquest.
              So why does he mention it?

              Evening News, Oct 9:

              On the Sunday morning of the murder, between 1.30 and 1.40, three of the members [...] left the club. They then noticed a couple - man and woman - standing by the iron post of the small passage that leads to Mitre square. They have no doubt themselves that this was the murdered woman and her murderer. And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about. One of the two detectives is Foster. Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man.
              Based on my last post, Lawende and Harris stand outside on the pavement for quite a bit longer than Levy, who seems to leave within seconds of their exit from the club.
              Therefore it would be logical to assume Lawende and Harris get a much better look at the CPC, than does Levy.
              So what explains this?

              Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.
              What does he know, that he refuses to give up?
              Did Levy perhaps recognise the man or woman?

              I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church passage, but I did not take any further notice of them, thinking that persons standing at that time in the morning in a dark passage were not up to much good. So I walked on. I was at home at twenty minutes to two.
              Keep in mind, that irrelevant detail.

              The Star, Oct 1:

              Mrs. Lindsay, who occupies the two front rooms of 11, Duke-street - almost opposite Church-passage, leading to the court - records a strange circumstance, which may or may not have a direct bearing upon the murder. She says that she is a very light sleeper, and is easily awakened by hearing any unusual noise. Early on Sunday morning she says - at what hour she could not specify - she heard the sound of one or two voices in the street below. Prompted by curiosity she looked out of the window just in time to hear a man's voice say, "I am not the murderer," uttered apparently in a tone of anger. Surprised on hearing the words, she called her husband, who, with her, saw a man disappearing down the street towards Aldgate. As he passed beneath a lamp she was able to discern that he was a man of average height, dressed in dark clothes, and carrying in his hand an umbrella and a small parcel.
              Q1: What was in the small parcel?
              Q2: Who's is the other voice, heard by Mrs Lindsay, and presumably the intended recipient of 'I am not the murderer'?

              The answer to Q1, I will leave to your imagination.

              An answer to Q2, for you to contemplate: Joseph Hyam Levy

              You see, I don't think Joseph rushed off home alone, at all.
              Instead; he walked off, waited in a dark area - long enough for the other two to go by - then went back to near the Church Passage entrance.
              Eventually, the man - but of course not the woman - exited the passage from the direction of the square.
              Levy was right there, waiting for him.

              Total nonsense?

              Robert Anderson:

              I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.
              Confronted with him?

              Would one say that a witness, when coming face-to-face with a suspect during an identification procedure, was confronted with that suspect?
              That would be an odd way to putting it.
              Nor is it what I think Anderson is hinting at.
              Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 03-26-2020, 10:50 AM.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Possibly Levy was indeed fearful that the 'lower orders' were on the streets of the City.

                He makes the point that he is the kind of person whose testimony about time could be relied upon: he implies he can't pass a clock without looking at it. His statement about arriving home underlines that, as well as making it clear to the court, and possibly the ripper, that he didn't have time to witness anything else.

                As for the colour of the woman's dress: in Victorian days dresses were probably all grey in the dark, or maybe anyway. (OT: I once witnessed a car roar off after an attempted rape: given the sodium lighting at the time I couldnt tell if it was white, grey, orange, or light blue. Other witnesses averred it was a dark colour! My uncertainty was taken as so much nonsense by the investigating officer. But I also gave the registration, and the culprit was caught a few days later. And by chance I saw the car in daylight parked under a bridge, burned out, but with the right registration. It was light blue.)

                If he did skulk in a dark part he was a brave man. He risked getting ripped, or having his collar felt by a beat PC, or one of the many undercover agents he may have been aware of.


                Comment


                • Echo 10 Sept
                  "The Exchange Telegraph reporter says that it is expected that he will be confronted with one or two women who will be examined as to his identity."

                  Daily News 11 Sept
                  'previous to his discharge Piser was confronted by Mrs. Fiddymont and another woman who were acquainted with "Leather Apron." '

                  Daily Telegraph 11 Sept
                  "It was reported on some show of authority that the man had been confronted with witnesses"

                  Irish Times 11 Sept
                  '"Inspector Abberline proceeded to Gravesened this morning, and decided to bring the prisoner back to Whitechapel so that he could be confronted with the woman who had furnished the description of "Leather Apron."'

                  Pall Mall Gazette 11 Sept
                  'As the prisoner's description tallied with the description of the suspected murderer he was detained, and subsequently removed to London, but, as we have seen, when confronted with the women who had furnished descriptions to the police it was unanimous opinion that Pigott was not "Leather Apron".'

                  Star 12 Sept
                  'John Piser, as the suspected "Leather Apron," was kept at Leman-street Police Station for 36 hours, but so far as we can learn he does not seem to have been done the justice of being confronted with any of the women who describe a man named "Leather Apron"'

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dupin View Post
                    Possibly Levy was indeed fearful that the 'lower orders' were on the streets of the City.

                    He makes the point that he is the kind of person whose testimony about time could be relied upon: he implies he can't pass a clock without looking at it. His statement about arriving home underlines that, as well as making it clear to the court, and possibly the ripper, that he didn't have time to witness anything else.

                    As for the colour of the woman's dress: in Victorian days dresses were probably all grey in the dark, or maybe anyway. (OT: I once witnessed a car roar off after an attempted rape: given the sodium lighting at the time I couldnt tell if it was white, grey, orange, or light blue. Other witnesses averred it was a dark colour! My uncertainty was taken as so much nonsense by the investigating officer. But I also gave the registration, and the culprit was caught a few days later. And by chance I saw the car in daylight parked under a bridge, burned out, but with the right registration. It was light blue.)

                    If he did skulk in a dark part he was a brave man. He risked getting ripped, or having his collar felt by a beat PC, or one of the many undercover agents he may have been aware of.

                    deleted-responded to wrong poster
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      Levy's testimony is a bit odd to me.



                      So he sees the CPC, but passes on without taken any further notice of them.
                      However, he also says:



                      Apparently then, he does take an interest in the couple's behaviour, but unfortunately can't hear them talking.
                      He doesn't like what sees:



                      So he is apprehensive about being around the CPC, given their looks, which also inform him of their social class.
                      On the other hand, he oddly cannot make out something as simple as the colour of the woman's dress:



                      Hard to tell if Levy is interested in the CPC, or just wants to get out of there, and get home...



                      What is interesting about this comment, is that he gives the estimated time he reaches his home.
                      Why so?
                      Because it is an irrelevant detail.
                      Perhaps important to him on the night, but not to the coroner at the inquest.
                      So why does he mention it?

                      Evening News, Oct 9:



                      Based on my last post, Lawende and Harris stand outside on the pavement for quite a bit longer than Levy, who seems to leave within seconds of their exit from the club.
                      Therefore it would be logical to assume Lawende and Harris get a much better look at the CPC, than does Levy.
                      So what explains this?



                      What does he know, that he refuses to give up?
                      Did Levy perhaps recognise the man or woman?



                      Keep in mind, that irrelevant detail.

                      The Star, Oct 1:



                      Q1: What was in the small parcel?
                      Q2: Who's is the other voice, heard by Mrs Lindsay, and presumably the intended recipient of 'I am not the murderer'?

                      The answer to Q1, I will leave to your imagination.

                      An answer to Q2, for you to contemplate: Joseph Hyam Levy

                      You see, I don't think Joseph rushed off home alone, at all.
                      Instead; he walked off, waited in a dark area - long enough for the other two to go by - then went back to near the Church Passage entrance.
                      Eventually, the man - but of course not the woman - exited the passage from the direction of the square.
                      Levy was right there, waiting for him.

                      Total nonsense?

                      Robert Anderson:



                      Confronted with him?

                      Would one say that a witness, when coming face-to-face with a suspect during an identification procedure, was confronted with that suspect?
                      That would be an odd way to putting it.
                      Nor is it what I think Anderson is hinting at.
                      hi Not
                      whats your overall theory as to who was the ripper and what was going on? does it have anything to do with your sig about Andrews?
                      If you could lay it out in a nut shell i would appreciate it.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                        Hmm? Possibly a surgeon, good with his hands. Renowned for relying on his touch, "feeling his way into a patient"?
                        What was Henry's best route to escape Mitre Square?
                        Dave?
                        After his next door neighbor moved from Finsbury Square to Brooke Street,Henry packed his family off to Kent.

                        As Henry was known to work late,he no doubt stayed overnight in London at times,especially when preparing for a new teaching term.

                        Perhaps he didn't require an escape route , just a loll in police traffic to plant a red herring for the Old Jewry.

                        "The Imitation Game" is an interesting movie. Well worth watching. On Netflix here in Oz.
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dupin View Post
                          Possibly Levy was indeed fearful that the 'lower orders' were on the streets of the City.
                          Possibly the truth is just as he said it. Agreed.

                          He makes the point that he is the kind of person whose testimony about time could be relied upon: he implies he can't pass a clock without looking at it. His statement about arriving home underlines that, as well as making it clear to the court, and possibly the ripper, that he didn't have time to witness anything else.
                          One paper has him saying - 'I walked along home, which I reached, I should think, by twenty minutes to two. I fix the time by the clock in the club.'
                          That doesn't sound like someone who obsessively looks at the clocks.

                          As for the colour of the woman's dress: in Victorian days dresses were probably all grey in the dark, or maybe anyway. (OT: I once witnessed a car roar off after an attempted rape: given the sodium lighting at the time I couldnt tell if it was white, grey, orange, or light blue. Other witnesses averred it was a dark colour! My uncertainty was taken as so much nonsense by the investigating officer. But I also gave the registration, and the culprit was caught a few days later. And by chance I saw the car in daylight parked under a bridge, burned out, but with the right registration. It was light blue.)
                          The essential point is that he probably intended to take note of the colour of the dress - he was interested in the CPC.
                          Having said that, here are some snippets from Lawende's testimony, which indicate to me that the CPC were reasonably visible.

                          The man looked rather rough and shabby.
                          He had on a peaked cloth cap, the peak of the same material apparently as the cap.
                          I noticed she had a black jacket and a black bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police station, and I recognise them as the sort of dress worn by that woman.
                          Apparently he could make out black items, no problem.
                          I also get the feeling that Lawende and JtR recognized each other.

                          If he did skulk in a dark part he was a brave man. He risked getting ripped, or having his collar felt by a beat PC, or one of the many undercover agents he may have been aware of.
                          Must have been a brave man.
                          I believe a lot of men were, back then.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            Echo 10 Sept
                            "The Exchange Telegraph reporter says that it is expected that he will be confronted with one or two women who will be examined as to his identity."

                            Daily News 11 Sept
                            'previous to his discharge Piser was confronted by Mrs. Fiddymont and another woman who were acquainted with "Leather Apron." '

                            Daily Telegraph 11 Sept
                            "It was reported on some show of authority that the man had been confronted with witnesses"

                            Irish Times 11 Sept
                            '"Inspector Abberline proceeded to Gravesened this morning, and decided to bring the prisoner back to Whitechapel so that he could be confronted with the woman who had furnished the description of "Leather Apron."'

                            Pall Mall Gazette 11 Sept
                            'As the prisoner's description tallied with the description of the suspected murderer he was detained, and subsequently removed to London, but, as we have seen, when confronted with the women who had furnished descriptions to the police it was unanimous opinion that Pigott was not "Leather Apron".'

                            Star 12 Sept
                            'John Piser, as the suspected "Leather Apron," was kept at Leman-street Police Station for 36 hours, but so far as we can learn he does not seem to have been done the justice of being confronted with any of the women who describe a man named "Leather Apron"'
                            These are all examples of suspects being confronted by witnesses, in a legal type context.

                            In a judicial setting, would it ever be said that a witness or witnesses, are confronted by a suspect?
                            Probably not, and yet Anderson states just that.
                            Therefore he must be referring to an event at one of the murder scenes.

                            The normal candidates for the witness that got a good view of the murderer are Schwartz and Lawende.
                            If one believes Schwartz' story - is Schwartz confronted by broad shoulders?
                            Stride certainly is, not sure about Schwartz though.
                            He does get a good view of the woman, but the man also? Maybe.
                            Lawende gets a fairly good view, but would we say he is confronted by JtR?
                            The CPC are talking quietly, across and up the street a bit - that is not a confrontation.
                            So neither of the usual candidates for best view of the murderer, are a particularly good match.

                            I think Anderson left us a few subtle hints, and the confrontation scenario is probably one of them.
                            My money is on Levy.
                            The implication of this being the truth, is obvious; Levy quite possibly new the identity of JtR, and if he did, he probably informed Anderson of it.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              hi Not
                              whats your overall theory as to who was the ripper and what was going on? does it have anything to do with your sig about Andrews?
                              If you could lay it out in a nut shell i would appreciate it.
                              It's not 'Andrews', it is 'Andrew' apostrophe 's'.
                              Let me know if that is still too cryptic.

                              As for Jack's identity, I'm pretty sure I have it narrowed down to just two men.
                              However, I want to become more familiar with some of the finer details of the canonicals, and just more informed of the nons, before I commit to either.
                              I think the double event night is the key to it all, though.
                              Partly because it provides the best opportunity to place a suspect at two murder scenes.
                              Understanding the meaning of the chalked message, is also a big advantage.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                It's not 'Andrews', it is 'Andrew' apostrophe 's'.
                                Let me know if that is still too cryptic.

                                As for Jack's identity, I'm pretty sure I have it narrowed down to just two men.
                                However, I want to become more familiar with some of the finer details of the canonicals, and just more informed of the nons, before I commit to either.
                                I think the double event night is the key to it all, though.
                                Partly because it provides the best opportunity to place a suspect at two murder scenes.
                                Understanding the meaning of the chalked message, is also a big advantage.
                                yes still too cryptic. and who are your two men?
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X