was Nichols murdered where found?

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the link.

Well, that explains where the idea that there were street lamps on Bucks Row originates, a street map from before the railway was built.

I'll stick with what the people at the scene of the murder were saying.

‘It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away.’ - P.C. Neil's Testimony, Daily News 3 Sept 1888

It has never been easy to establish the placement of street lighting in Whitechapel in 1888. One past debate on the lighting around the GSG occupied pages. Due to the lack of any firm maps being available we simply do not know.

Regards, Jon S.

[Mr Lucky]

I seem to recall a VERY detailed and expert discussion of lighting conditions in Bucks Row as a result of the documentary not long ago. I'll try to find it.

Edited to add, the thread is here (I think) - discussion of lighting in Bucks row around page 11 on my display.

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the link.

Well, that explains where the idea that there were street lamps on Bucks Row originates, a street map from before the railway was built.

I'll stick with what the people at the scene of the murder were saying.

‘It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away.’ - P.C. Neil's Testimony, Daily News 3 Sept 1888

[lynn cates]

It Mitre been.

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"his escape from Mitre Square shows awareness of where police were, and the best routes for a safe departure."

Agreed. But, as you know, I think that has nothing to do with Polly or Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

There were no gas lamps around the murder scene. The book is in error. Check the relevant thread in the book section.
The slightly sloppy placing of the lamps in the pictures is an example of 'institutional suspect bias', as it greatly affects an important aspect of the crime scene.

Not really the place to discuss this lechmere, but I totally disagree. The CSI book is one of the most UNBIASED I know of on the subject. I say that here in case your remarks put off any member who has not looked at the thread on this important and wholly excellent work.

Phil H

[Phil H]

Same reason I had at one time for precisely that view. It holds, ONLY if one believes in a calculating murderer who intended to kill.

I don't believe that "Jack" was a calculating murderer, but I think we have to assume he possessed some natural "cunning - his escape from Mitre Square shows awareness of where police were, and the best routes for a safe departure.

Off topic, but not irrelevant - I believe that his use of the backyard in Hanbury St clearly demonstrates that he was familiar with the rear of those properties (if not of No29 itself).

As with polly in Bucks row, I think the simplest explanation is that the victim led him to the location. He need for a modicum of privacy and avoidance of interruption was as great as his (though the reasons were different). same with Annie.

BUT - in the case of hanbury St, he could NOT see both ways up the street. With two doors between him and safety, someone could be on him (opening the yard door) before he was aware of it. Unless we assume he knew what lay behind the facade of No 29, he had two doors concealing it from him. Who knew what he would find there? And if the light was dawning and the streets already full of workers - who knew who might want to use the privy or glance out of a window?

Ok, at first he had the excuse of being a punter with a woman. But once he struck, any interruption meant almost certain capture. So, I think he KNEW what was behind there and he knew that in darkness he was safer (not safe but safer).

Annie was killed where she was found - I see no reason not to assume the same with Polly.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

changing stories

Hello Phil. Thanks.

"My reason for believing that the murder happened earlier, is that it would have been foolhardy in the extreme for "Jack" to have killed just as people in No29 and adjacent properties, were stirring."

Same reason I had at one time for precisely that view. It holds, ONLY if one believes in a calculating murderer who intended to kill.

And, of course, as with John, stories can change--so you may have correctly assessed his motive.

Indeed, stories change. Regarding Polly, there were early reports that she was dragged, but that was later shown to be false. So, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, no reason to think she was killed elsewhere.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

There were no gas lamps around the murder scene. The book is in error. Check the relevant thread in the book section.
The slightly sloppy placing of the lamps in the pictures is an example of 'institutional suspect bias', as it greatly affects an important aspect of the crime scene.

[Phil H]

I seem to recall a VERY detailed and expert discussion of lighting conditions in Bucks Row as a result of the documentary not long ago. I'll try to find it.

Edited to add, the thread is here (I think) - discussion of lighting in Bucks row around page 11 on my display.

Hope this helps,

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5312&page=11&highlight=Bucks+Row

Phil H

[Mr Lucky]

Hi MrLucky,
I dont have many of my ripper books to hand at the moment,and I would admit to not remembering a street lamp oppersite the murder scene.
However I am assuming the CGI picture is accurate as
I am sure authors mr Begg and mr Bennett wouldnt pass it for publication.

Many thanks.

Hi Spyglass

I don't know why there are street lights on the CGI picture. There are no contemporary records that suggest that Bucks Row was illuminated to this degree.

‘Each of the ill-lighted thoroughfares to which the women were decoyed to be foully butchered are off turnings from Whitechapel-road’ - the Star 1 Sept 1888

The people at the scene of the murder seem to have the same opinion, Neil used his lamp on Nichols before he realised she had her throat cut, Mrs Green couldn't tell whether the body was male or female and sent her son James to find out. Both Cross and Paul mention the dark -

Charles Cross - ‘In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman.’ - The Daily News 4th Sept. 1888

Robert Paul - ‘It was very dark’ - The Times 18 Sept. 1888

[Phil H]

Lynn - you are no doubt aware of the threads discussing whether Richardson's inquest testimony is tenable or consistent. there is, as i recall, a question about his story getting elaborated with details re his boot and the knife he used.

As we have only Richardson's word tyo go on, I think there are three broad possibilities:

a) he either did not go into the yard at all, or glanced cursorily to his right; missing the body that was already there (the logic would then be that he had to hold to his story of the body NOT being there);

b) everything happened as he said, the body was not there and the murder occured after 5.00am;

c) I suppose - that Richardson was the killer - but I utterly discount that idea.

We have, i should think, all found occasions when at home or work we have shirked a routine duty only to find that on that particular date, it mattered! What do you do? own up? Some people might have the guts, the honesty, the moral principle to do so. Others might try to brazen it out - I DID DO what i was supposed to... Richardson might have been of the second sort.

My reason for believing that the murder happened earlier, is that it would have been foolhardy in the extreme for "Jack" to have killed just as people in No29 and adjacent properties, were stirring. We know that was so, because of the movements 9in every sense!) of Davis, Cadosche etc. the yard was overlooked by numerous windows as any photograph demonstrates. There was no ready means of escape bar vaulting the fence.

far more likely that he committed the murder when it was dark, around the same hour he killed Polly, and when it was unlikely he would be disturbed or seen.

Overall, I think the murder site at No29 tells us more than we often think about "Jack" and his work.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

John

Hello Phil. Thanks. Yes, that is a possibility. Of course, Richardson's boy--of whom I am no fan, testimony wise--must have an acceptable tweak, to work out.

Cheers.
LC

[spyglass]

Hi MrLucky,
I dont have many of my ripper books to hand at the moment,and I would admit to not remembering a street lamp oppersite the murder scene.
However I am assuming the CGI picture is accurate as
I am sure authors mr Begg and mr Bennett wouldnt pass it for publication.

Many thanks.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Spyglass,

‘I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot.’ -Robert Paul, Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 2 Sept 1888

[Phil H]

I think the question of whether Polly was killed where found has been gone into many times. I have yet to see any convincing reason for doubting the police view at the time. She WAS!

They looked for bloodstains elsewhere and were able to talk to locals. They came up with nothing.

I think the answer is that the lighting was not a key issue for "Jack". She led him to a place secluded and private enough to do their business. Maybe the stable recess was in deeper shadow. He took his opportunity and struck.

As Lynn says, there is no reason to suppose "Jack" was rational - I see him as an opportunist - cunning and aware (highly aware) of his surroundings, lucky but not a planner.

I agree it was not a good place for a murder and that no rational murderer would select that place to do his victim.

I don't think a rational murderer would talk loudly with his victim just before going into the back yard to kill her, as was done in Hanbury st.

On that I'd disagree with you Lynn. Not on the talking loudly, but on whether it was "Jack" whom Mrs Long/Darrell saw (if that is what you are referring to. I believe Annie was killed in darkness, much earlier than usually said. No one saw him at 3.45 or so as they entered the passageway.

The voices heard by Cadosche? Possibly someone who found the body earlier than John Davis. (A startled "No!" and a thump as they supported themselves against the fence would not be impossible as an explanation.)

Phil H

[Mr Lucky]

Hi all,
Having just purchased and enjoyed the book CSI Whitechapel, the CGI crime scene pictures are fantastic. But I couldnt help noticing that the Bucks Row murder spot seems to be very well lit with the street lamp on the other side lighting up the actual spot where nichols was found. Ok, perfect for a murderer to see what he was doing but not perfect if you dont want to be seen. This seems to be in complete contrast to the spots in Hanbury Street and Mitre Sq.

Surely this would again raise the often asked question " was Nichols murdered where she was found "? As this picture shows it wasnt a good or safe place to commit murder...but a good place for a body to be seen and found.

Cheers.

Hi Spyglass,

There was a street light on the north corner with Brady Street, but that's all there was near the murder site, so the spot where the body was found was actually quite gloomy.

The location seemed to be a suitable site for assaults and robbery as Robert Paul mentioned in his Lloyd's statement, so it would appear it may have been a good location for a murder in the eyes of the killer.

Personally, I think there is very little chance that Nichols was murdered somewhere other than where she was found.