Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The seemingly endless disputes over every inconsistency, and more so the fact that each discrepancy apparently proves beyond doubt that someone is a liar, a fraud, willfully misleading the authorities, covering up the facts and generally perpetrating some truly convoluted conspiracy always puts me in mind of the shooting of John Charles deMeneses on the London Underground. This case was and to some extent still is notable for the amount of erroneous witness statements and the repitition of errors as facts. Add to it the fact that the authorities did genuinely try to cover up thier mistakes and it makes an interesting parallel. Of course, CCTV was used to verify facts. If only the Victorians had some kind of MRDV, or Messenger Relayed Daguerreotype Vision.
Anyhow, why are we so quick to call everyone out as liars? The community around Berner St quickly started to congregate, and as I suspect, gossip. And when folks gossip, facts get mixed up. Add eager reporters and lo, everyone has a story to tell. Is it any wonder the puzzle pieces don't match perfectly? Discrepancy does not necessarily equate to dishonesty.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I've considered that in the past, but it seems to me fraught with difficulties. First, the police did a full inspection of the properties in the square and accounted for all those who lived there. While I suppose one could suggest JtR "fooled them", the next issue is that the apron appears in Goulston Street about an hour later. The square was pretty much locked down immediately after the murder, so even if JtR lived in the square it appears he left it as he dropped the apron off later. And if he first went to his home in the square, he wouldn't have been able to leave in order to drop the apron later. So, whether or not he lived in the square it appears he had to have left it.

- Jeff

The need to be able to go back out unobserved is an obstacle to this idea Jeff, agreed. I suppose if more than one man did it, and the confederate left the scene with the apron, it could still work. I was just wondering about Pearce. Having a view of the murder scene from his window. Would be high drama if it was him and he watched the investigation begin. I don't recall seeing any interviews from his family that's recorded as being with him there. Nor from him actually.

We do have very nearby some men breaking into the Post Office that same weekend, its likely they were there late Saturday night. I suppose they saw and heard the commotion happening down on the street, and were perhaps trapped in that location. Ive not considered Morris as suspicious,... just exploring for discussion and wondered who might had considered this option.

I think one thing is a fairly sure bet, whomever did this he (they) were gone from the square itself by 1:45.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Here, Kozebrodski tells us he first went the same way as Diemschutz, and then went up to Commercial Rd (like Eagle), where he found a policeman.

Actually the full Issac K quote that is relevant is this..."

About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

In fact here in The Daily News we have more detail.....first he went with Diemschutz, then he went with Eagle.

"I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers."

Yep. That's the quote. But when you leave out the other things he said its misrepresentative.


What did Eagle say?

"I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street."

What is it that you think you see there Jon? Issac K had already left earlier just as he said he had, at Louis's or some other members instructions. No-one identifies Issac Kozebroski as the man who went with Eagle, in fact in Louis's case we have that man identified as Issacs. Issac Kozebrodksi's own words on the matter surely must prevail.

What did PC Lamb in Commercial Rd say?

"I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting."

Again, you presume who these 2 men are they are not identified. Issac K does say he meets Eagle and they meet policemen, so, yeah....Two men - Eagle & Kozebrodski?

Kozebrodski first went along Fairclough street with Diemschutz, then back, and went with Eagle up to Commercial Rd and found PC Lamb.

No Jon, Issac K was sent out by Louis or someone shortly after 12:40am to get help. He found none. When heading back he saw Eagle, they saw policemen, and they went back to the gates. Louis and Eagle went out in different directions after 1am. Spooner saw 2 members running and calling for help around 12:45...these are not Louis and Issac K, but 2 members that are never identified, and their being sent out is never recorded by Louis or anyone else. Just like Issac K being sent well before 1 isn't mentioned. Why? Well, because Louis didn't arrive until "precisely" 1am, while Fanny stood at her door to the street. 4 people said they were alerted to and by the body with others at no later than 12:45. Louis says he didn't arrive until 1. Fanny didn't see him at all before or at 1. Independent Witnesses that in multiple numbers give stories that match each other must be considered more probably accurate than stories which are concerning the same time and have no corroboration at all.

Like Eagles return, time and actions. Like Louis's arrival time. Like Israel Schwartz's street altercation time. 4 men say they were by the body at the same time by 12:45...(2 say earlier than that, all saying that others were there too)....but by 12:45 none of them see Eagle return, Lave at the gates, Israel Schwartz, BSM and a Pipeman on the streets. Not one corroborating witness. Lave and Eagle both say that they were by the gates at 12:40, and they don't even seen each other. Eagles not sure whether he had to sidestep around a body at 12:40. Surely this is all clear to you Jon, yet you and other folks continually put the emphasis on the accounts by club affiliated people who have zero corroboration. The guys with the most reasons to frame this event carefully to the police.

If you use prudence, youll base any storyline on the most corroborated times and activities, and if you do youll see that Louis arrived shortly after PC Smith left, he was inside the passageway at around 12:40-12:45 with other members over a dying woman lying inside the gates, people were sent for help including Issac Kozebrodski, and shortly after 1am Louis and Issacs went out one way and Eagle another to find help. It explains why Fanny probably never saw him, she was not at her door continuously that half hour until 12:50 until 1am. It means that Brown saw the young couple, who was also seen by Fanny. Corroberated couple.

[Wickerman]

Haven't you noticed how hard Dave is trying to steer everyone back to Mitre Square?


Ok, then, just briefly...
There's a little too much conspiracy in this post for my liking.

But now we have to wonder; if Schwartz now lives in Backchurch Lane (as of Oct 1), was the address given to Abberline - 22 Ellen street - a lie?

Or is it that Schwartz does not actually live at Backchurch Lane or Ellen street?

Now why would a non-English speaking man come forward to the police to give a statement about an assault, and then start providing fake addresses?

To my mind, calling a witness a liar is a cheap cop-out.
Here, you are not understanding the way postal addresses were referenced in the late 19th century.

Ellen street does not abut (meet up with) a major road like Commercial Rd., so the Post Office will give the next adjacent road as part of the address.
This is why we read Ellen street, Backchurch Lane. However, it is just as accurate to say Ellen street, Berner street, especially as the actual number 22, is nearer to the Berner street junction (intersection). Then again, if Schwartz lived at the east end of Ellen Street we could read Ellen street, Christian street. The general rule was to identify the target address with the next & nearest most well known adjoining street. If Backchurch Lane was better known in the East End than either Berner St. or Christian St. then Backchurch Lane would be the most common reference.
Thats all we are dealing with here.

Couple that with the fact we do not know if Mrs Schwartz moved that Sunday (30th), the day he gave 22 Ellen street as his address to police.
They may have moved the next day (1st), which could be why the Star reporter have to 'track him down'. On the Monday he may have been found at an address in Backchurch Lane.
The press account seems to suggest Schwartz originally lived in Berner street and moved to Backchurch Lane, but 22 Ellen street is not in Berner street nor Backchurch Lane. So, did the reporter mean he moved from Ellen street Berner street, to Backchurch Lane. Or, from Berner street to Ellen street Backchurch Lane?
It could be either, but until something definitive is found it is not acceptable to simply call Schwartz a liar.

[DJA]

haven't you noticed how hard dave is trying to steer everyone back to 6 mitre street?

fify

[Wickerman]

What a teaser!

[DJA]

What a teaser!

As you know this has been explained before,however if it gets us back on topic ......

that other Canadian has suggested Jack might have resided in Mitre Square,an opinion I've held for over 11 years and have previously mentioned on this thread.

Let us explore the viability of 6 Mitre Street.

Stride's demise and Eddowes release would put Jack and Eddowes at 6 Mitre Street ~ 1.10 am narrowly missing Watkins' patrol.
As Eddowes was not reported to be drenched,fair surmise they entered.
If Stride,Eddowes and BSman,whoever he was,were to meet Jack in Dutfield's Yard,Eddowes had some explaining to do ..... hence GSG's "nothing",etc.
Jack decides it is safest to murder Eddowes,leaving only Mary Ann Kelly to contend with.
Eddowes is strangled and Jack waits until after Watkins 1.30am departure before carrying her through the gate into Mitre Square proper.

The rest should be fairly obvious.

Given Smith and Sutton's alter egos in RLS' novella,I've always found the following amusing.



"The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it."

[Michael W Richards]

As you know this has been explained before,however if it gets us back on topic ......

that other Canadian has suggested Jack might have resided in Mitre Square,an opinion I've held for over 11 years and have previously mentioned on this thread.

Let us explore the viability of 6 Mitre Street.

Stride's demise and Eddowes release would put Jack and Eddowes at 6 Mitre Street ~ 1.10 am narrowly missing Watkins' patrol.
As Eddowes was not reported to be drenched,fair surmise they entered.
If Stride,Eddowes and BSman,whoever he was,were to meet Jack in Dutfield's Yard,Eddowes had some explaining to do ..... hence GSG's "nothing",etc.
Jack decides it is safest to murder Eddowes,leaving only Mary Ann Kelly to contend with.
Eddowes is strangled and Jack waits until after Watkins 1.30am departure before carrying her through the gate into Mitre Square proper.

The rest should be fairly obvious.

Given Smith and Sutton's alter egos in RLS' novella,I've always found the following amusing.



"The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it."

You use the premise I suggested in the last few days then refer to me as "that other Canadian"? Not taking issue at all DJA, just thought "that other Canadian" was funny. Don't recall seeing the previous occasion you brought it up here.

[DJA]

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums
Post 376
Owners & Occupiers 1888 Mitre St and Sq [Archive] - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

[Tom_Wescott]

The Star of Oct. 3rd doesn't contain anything of note

Posters have tried to argue for a special relationship between the police and the Star newspaper before, which never amounted to more than wishful thinking, typically in an attempt to support a particular theory.
An extraordinary claim such as that requires extraordinary evidence, which somehow never materializes.

I would call the editor of the Star suggesting that the police had used one of their journalists to post a fake news story in order to aid the police investigation something of note, wouldn't you? I would also argue that editor of the Star himself is a rather better source than these random unnamed posters you mention. As for the idea of the police using the press to meet their own ends, I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone else who would consider such a suggestion 'extraordinary'. It simply is what it is. The police were attempting to locate Pipeman and BS Man. To do that, they had to hold Schwartz back from the inquest and try to lure one or the other out via the press, hence the Star report with a clearly fabricated version of events re: Schwartz. It's as simple as that and I laid it all out in 2017. That anyone is still on here debating the issue is a mystery to me, but horses and water and all that, I guess.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

My post was for the other Canadian. Thanks though
His "proof" is ......

"Schwartz was connected with Wess from a visit to Paris a few years back, this was our fine researchers Debra's find, so I dont claim to know the specifics."

He has no proof that Wess could speak more than his native language,Yiddish and English.

Anyone know when this thread is reverting to Jack's purported escape from Mitre Square?

Just to set the records straight, it was Maria Birbili who researched and reported on a man named Schwartz and his connection to Wess, not me!

[JeffHamm]

The need to be able to go back out unobserved is an obstacle to this idea Jeff, agreed. I suppose if more than one man did it, and the confederate left the scene with the apron, it could still work. I was just wondering about Pearce. Having a view of the murder scene from his window. Would be high drama if it was him and he watched the investigation begin. I don't recall seeing any interviews from his family that's recorded as being with him there. Nor from him actually.

We do have very nearby some men breaking into the Post Office that same weekend, its likely they were there late Saturday night. I suppose they saw and heard the commotion happening down on the street, and were perhaps trapped in that location. Ive not considered Morris as suspicious,... just exploring for discussion and wondered who might had considered this option.

I think one thing is a fairly sure bet, whomever did this he (they) were gone from the square itself by 1:45.

Yes, I think from all what we know, or for the more conservative, all that we have to work with, the evidence points towards JtR being out of the square by 1:45, and probably was gone for a few minutes by that point.

As for there being an accomplice, while I suppose that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me. Out of all the potential sightings, the only one I can think of that suggests a potential collaborator is that of Schwartz (pipeman), and based upon investigations of that it appears the police concluded from their investigations that pipeman was unlikely to have been involved. All other potential sightings that I can think of point towards a single offender. Also, the nature of the crimes themselves, seem to me to be more consistent with a singular offender. If the crimes occurred inside at an offender's location, and bodies were then transported, then I might be more open to there being an accomplice. Two people operating out in the open, with one being a look out, etc, just seems to elevate the risk far more than just doubling it, and also, an offender who engages in a personal obsession (the mutilation type attack) seems far more likely to be someone who is not going to share that with another. Obviously, these are just my opinion and clearly reflect my own personal bias as to how the offenses strike me, but the lack of any reliable reports of an accomplice it seems probable JtR worked alone.

Note, that isn't to say he necessarily lived alone (though I lean that way in my thoughts), but I'm not including people who might have suspected him after the fact and focusing on the notion of someone else out there with him at the time of the murders.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Just to set the records straight, it was Maria Birbili who researched and reported on a man named Schwartz and his connection to Wess, not me!

Schwartz : At the Inquest or Not ? - Page 5 - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

[Wickerman]

I would call the editor of the Star suggesting that the police had used one of their journalists to post a fake news story in order to aid the police investigation something of note, wouldn't you?

You might, but you would need the ok from the commissioner to do such a thing. Given the animosity between Scotland Yard and the Star such a collaboration is highly unlikely. At the lower level, the regular Met. police would never be permitted to entertain such an idea.
More often Scotland Yard would pass official press releases through the Central News Agency, but sometimes the Press Association. We have no evidence of any clandestine communications between Scotland Yard and either of the press agencies.

I would also argue that editor of the Star himself is a rather better source than these random unnamed posters you mention.

It was due to the caustic attitude of the editor, T.P. O'Connor, towards Charles Warren and his outfit that Scotland Yard avoided dealings with the Star wherever possible.

As for the idea of the police using the press to meet their own ends, I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone else who would consider such a suggestion 'extraordinary'.

That could be, but how many "anyone else's" have actually taken the trouble to study it?

It simply is what it is. The police were attempting to locate Pipeman and BS Man. To do that, they had to hold Schwartz back from the inquest and try to lure one or the other out via the press, hence the Star report with a clearly fabricated version of events re: Schwartz. It's as simple as that and I laid it all out in 2017. That anyone is still on here debating the issue is a mystery to me, but horses and water and all that, I guess.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This might come as a surprise, but it is likely true to say there isn't a Ripper book published that has provided 'the last word' on anything.

[Wickerman]

As for there being an accomplice, while I suppose that's possible, but it seems unlikely to me. Out of all the potential sightings, the only one I can think of that suggests a potential collaborator is that of Schwartz (pipeman), and based upon investigations of that it appears the police concluded from their investigations that pipeman was unlikely to have been involved. All other potential sightings that I can think of point towards a single offender. Also, the nature of the crimes themselves, seem to me to be more consistent with a singular offender.

For what it's worth....


Scotsman, 2 Oct. 1888