Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[Bridewell]

Thanks, Dave!

I thought it applied to an informer who ended up buried under the grass.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic,

Just to add a bit of detail to Dave's earlier answer, a "supergrass" is someone who has been himself involved in criminal activity, but who "turns Queen's evidence" (i.e. agrees to give evidence for the prosecution) in the hope of a reduced sentence. I have seen it used by the UK press with reference to American mafiosi who testify against their former associates.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my own experience is that criminals use "grass" to describe an informer, whereas police officers refer to "snouts". Just to confuse matters somewhat, "snout" is prison slang for tobacco!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Wot...like pushin' up the daisies? (the real ones as opposed to daisy roots = boots!)

Dave

[Archaic]

Thanks, Dave!

I thought it applied to an informer who ended up buried under the grass.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Barbara

East end or cockney rhyming slang I think - grasshopper for copper...1930s I think in origin...though it may just be earlier.

Dave

[Beowulf]

Grass - An informer...paid or otherwise

Supergrass - ditto but big time

All the best

Dave

Is 'grass' an old term? What country is it from?

[Cogidubnus]

Grass

Grass - An informer...paid or otherwise

Supergrass - ditto but big time

All the best

Dave

[Archaic]

Grass?

Hi Moonbegger.

I'm not familiar with your term "Grass"; is it an East End slang term for ending up "six foot under," "pushing up daisies"?

Thanks,
Archaic

[moonbegger]

Hi Curious.

Even today there are people who witness horrific crimes that choose to lay low and "mind their own business" rather than speak up.

I have to wonder- in the fall of 1888, how much faith did poorer Londoners have that the police were truly capable of protecting them if they came forward and testified? What about protecting their families? It would be cold comfort to have the police show up when you're already lying dead and utterly desecrated, ripped open like a pig in a butcher's shop! After all, the Ripper had shown that he could kill multiple times in the most brazen fashion and get away with it.

As you say, there's very little chance we'll ever know if a witness saw, heard or knew more than they let on, but based upon the crowded conditions in Whitechapel and the rather 'public' nature of the crimes I can't help feeling that it's likely.

Even if it wasn't enough to actually identify the perpetrator, it might have helped to fill in some of the blanks that drive us all crazy.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archiac / Curious ,

Yes this is totally plausible .. Fear itself can hold a very tight grip on a community , The fear of becoming drawn in , the fear of becoming the new focal point . the Fear of being involved in something you have no desire to be involved in . Growing up in the East End i have witnessed this my self on many occasions , i have also heard first hand story's from my older relatives of the Kray's very own reign of terror , and how everyday people who actually saw stuff opted to keep schtum ( Mouth shut ) No one wants to be a Grass.

Having said that , i know and appreciate that a brutal murderer of women is a completely different story. But fear operates at many different levels , and i'm pretty sure that the fear and terror that was swirling around the East End during that Autumn of Terror , was enough to make anyone think twice .

Cheers

Moonbegger

[curious]

Hi Curious.

Even today there are people who witness horrific crimes that choose to lay low and "mind their own business" rather than speak up.

I have to wonder- in the fall of 1888, how much faith did poorer Londoners have that the police were truly capable of protecting them if they came forward and testified? What about protecting their families? It would be cold comfort to have the police show up when you're already lying dead and utterly desecrated, ripped open like a pig in a butcher's shop! After all, the Ripper had shown that he could kill multiple times in the most brazen fashion and get away with it.

As you say, there's very little chance we'll ever know if a witness saw, heard or knew more than they let on, but based upon the crowded conditions in Whitechapel and the rather 'public' nature of the crimes I can't help feeling that it's likely.

Even if it wasn't enough to actually identify the perpetrator, it might have helped to fill in some of the blanks that drive us all crazy.

Best regards,
Archaic

Very plausible. In addition to the law-abiding citizens who did not trust the law to protect them there must have been people who were actually hiding from the law and would never draw attention to themselves by telling what they had seen.

Filling in the blanks would certainly be great.

[Archaic]

wouldn't it be terrifying to know you had that kind of knowledge and the killer had that kind of knowledge? I suspect some people probably did see things with these murders that perhaps they did not realize were important. . . but I don't see any way we can ever know now.

Hi Curious.

Even today there are people who witness horrific crimes that choose to lay low and "mind their own business" rather than speak up.

I have to wonder- in the fall of 1888, how much faith did poorer Londoners have that the police were truly capable of protecting them if they came forward and testified? What about protecting their families? It would be cold comfort to have the police show up when you're already lying dead and utterly desecrated, ripped open like a pig in a butcher's shop! After all, the Ripper had shown that he could kill multiple times in the most brazen fashion and get away with it.

As you say, there's very little chance we'll ever know if a witness saw, heard or knew more than they let on, but based upon the crowded conditions in Whitechapel and the rather 'public' nature of the crimes I can't help feeling that it's likely.

Even if it wasn't enough to actually identify the perpetrator, it might have helped to fill in some of the blanks that drive us all crazy.

Best regards,
Archaic

[moonbegger]

Oh Hello Observer ,

So glad to have you back .. Thought you left us

"That's it, no more posts on this thread to you my friend.

Regards

Observer"

Keep an eye on those stress levels my friend .

moonbegger

[Observer]

Don't know about the bayonets Moonblagger, you're definitely firing blank rounds though.

[curious]

Hi everyone.

One thing I've wondered about- though I hasten to add that we have no actual evidence for- is whether it's possible that someone in No. 29 did actually see or hear the Ripper, but was too scared by the encounter to come forward?

Maybe someone passed right by the killer in the passage? This could have happened either while he was on his way out to the backyard with his victim, or when he was on his way in from the backyard and heading for the front door. Or perhaps someone heard a small noise, stuck their head out of the window, and saw the crime occur. Maybe some unfortunate witness got a pretty good look at the killer, but was terrified because the killer had either got a good look back at them, or now knew which room they lived in.

Of course it's the sort of thing we'll probably never know, so it's merely a possibility. And it's not by any means my "theory" of what happened, just an idea born of frustration at the fact that there were so many people living at No. 29, yet none of them saw or heard anything. I've wondered if after killing Annie Chapman the Ripper lay low for several weeks at least in part because he wasn't sure if a better eye-witness would come forward?

Maybe getting away with the Chapman murder made him confident that he could also get away with a murder in Dutfield's Yard. Both murders occurred behind doors; behind the back door at Hanbury Strret and behind the big gate at Dutfield's.

Best regards,
Archaic

wouldn't it be terrifying to know you had that kind of knowledge and the killer had that kind of knowledge? I suspect some people probably did see things with these murders that perhaps they did not realize were important. . . but I don't see any way we can ever know now.

[moonbegger]

Hi Archaic ,

Yes ( if only ) wouldn't that be fantastic ! Although would we believe them if they did

Moonblagger .

" They don't like it up em "

[Archaic]

A Better Eye-Witness? (*Pure Speculation*)

Hi everyone.

One thing I've wondered about- though I hasten to add that we have no actual evidence for- is whether it's possible that someone in No. 29 did actually see or hear the Ripper, but was too scared by the encounter to come forward?

Maybe someone passed right by the killer in the passage? This could have happened either while he was on his way out to the backyard with his victim, or when he was on his way in from the backyard and heading for the front door. Or perhaps someone heard a small noise, stuck their head out of the window, and saw the crime occur. Maybe some unfortunate witness got a pretty good look at the killer, but was terrified because the killer had either got a good look back at them, or now knew which room they lived in.

Of course it's the sort of thing we'll probably never know, so it's merely a possibility. And it's not by any means my "theory" of what happened, just an idea born of frustration at the fact that there were so many people living at No. 29, yet none of them saw or heard anything. I've wondered if after killing Annie Chapman the Ripper lay low for several weeks at least in part because he wasn't sure if a better eye-witness would come forward?

Maybe getting away with the Chapman murder made him confident that he could also get away with a murder in Dutfield's Yard. Both murders occurred behind doors; behind the back door at Hanbury Strret and behind the big gate at Dutfield's.

Best regards,
Archaic