Good to see the thread back up and running. It was a wonderful trip I had a couple of years ago. And it really is amazing just how close the two areas are. You can get from one to another in no time. You can almost pass through by accident if you are heading back to Whitechapel.
From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.
Collapse
X
-
I agree with Lewis C here they probably wanted to remain anonymous and/or would have been scared if they came forward they would have either been accused of being the murderer or of trying to cause a riot or something.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Cenci View PostJust going back to the chalk bit, why didn’t the real writer of the graffito ever come forward?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Cenci View PostJust going back to the chalk bit, why didn’t the real writer of the graffito ever come forward?
👍 2Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View Post
Can't say for sure but probably because he would then have to explain why it was found next to a very incriminating piece of evidence, i.e., the apron.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Cenci View PostJust going back to the chalk bit, why didn’t the real writer of the graffito ever come forward?
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Just going back to the chalk bit, why didn’t the real writer of the graffito ever come forward?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
I'm not sure the police beat logistics and so on would work for PC Harvey, but it's possible that someone came along and that meant dropping the apron was a good idea.
Personally, I'd got for: he was far enough away from the crime scene, there was nobody around, and he took the opportunity to pause and get himself together for the walk home.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
Maybe that is why he got rid of the apron piece. He sees Harvey coming towards him so casually drops the incriminating evidence.
Personally, I'd got for: he was far enough away from the crime scene, there was nobody around, and he took the opportunity to pause and get himself together for the walk home.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
In the event we are to believe other newspapers' reporting of the inquest, then it would suggest that Joseph was concerned for his welfare, which is unlikely to have been induced from a belief that prostitution was about to take place but rather that a mugging could be in the offing.
There is no reason to suppose that Levy was afraid that the woman with the bonnet might attack him.
He may, however, have been worried that the man - who was described by Lawende as rough-looking - might attack him, or that others like him might be about at such a late hour and they might attack him.
He did say that he was rarely out later than 11 p.m.
There really is no reason to think that the woman was doing anything other than soliciting.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
The only evidence we have of business being conducted at around the time of the murder in that area is of a rough man who had the appearance of a sailor being charmed by a woman who had her hand on his chest in a passage off Duke Street that led to Mitre Square.
You're basing this on Joseph Levy thinking they were 'up to no good'. Firstly, that is Joseph's intuition, assuming Joseph wasn't proven to hold supernatural powers that enabled him to predict the future. Secondly, 'up to no good' could quite easily have meant something outside of the intent you're suggesting.
In fact, according to other reports from the inquest, Joseph said more:
I don't like going home by myself when I see these sort of characters about.
In the event we are to believe other newspapers' reporting of the inquest, then it would suggest that Joseph was concerned for his welfare, which is unlikely to have been induced from a belief that prostitution was about to take place but rather that a mugging could be in the offing.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
I meant
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and use the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped...
instead of
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped...
Otherwise, some readers might think you meant
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack ... used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped...
which is not what you meant.
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
Do you mean use instead of used?
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Huh??
I meant
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and use the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped...
instead of
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped...
Otherwise, some readers might think you meant
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack ... used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped...
which is not what you meant.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
Do you mean use instead of used?
Huh??
If you are arguing that he could have deposited the organs at his lodgings, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation, then I agree.
If he did carry away organs, IMO he would have come prepared for that task.
As for the possible bloody hand mark on the apron, is it not just as likely that he wiped blood from an uncut hand on the apron?
He could have quickly wiped blood from his hands and knife at the scene, rather than take away incriminating evidence. I think he needed the apron portion to address an unanticipated occurrence that needed time to resolve itself. JMO.
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
I am as yet unpersuaded that Jack didn't cut himself, an unanticipated occurrence requiring an adhoc solution, and used the apron piece to stem the flow until it had stopped, or he reached a bolt hole, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation. JMO.
Do you mean use instead of used?
If you are arguing that he could have deposited the organs at his lodgings, after which he disposed of the incriminating piece of cloth in a predominately Jewish area of residence, with an accompanying accusation, then I agree.
As for the possible bloody hand mark on the apron, is it not just as likely that he wiped blood from an uncut hand on the apron?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: