"City PC"

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bridewell. Inspector Reid wrote that none of the victims were missing organs. Why aren't there threads for that with you laying out the argument to support Reid?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Rubber shoes and glow-worm eyes

Hello all,

The man the city P.C. saw.

Couldn`t this refer to the man Sergeant Stephen White saw? I have always thought so. The one with the rubber shoes and eyes like glow-worms. I know the objection is that Mitre Square is not a cul-de-sac, but at a pinch the spot where Catherine Eddowes was found could be seen as one ( in a way).

Best wishes,
C4

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell,

No, that's true.

But it's true only up to a point.

That sharp end, is that it does not connect to the other quote from 'Aberconway'; about whom this supposed City PC witness was supposed to have seen -- a poor Jew chatting with the victim.

For we know from other sources that the witness was in fact a poor Jew and the person he claimed to have seen does not match 'Kosminski'.

This suggests that a reversal has taken place, rather than that there really was a City PC witness.

[Bridewell]

Fantasy Theory

I thought it was agreed by all that there was no City PC witness and a simple mistake had been made? But if we're putting out fantasy theories for fun

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

"Fantasy theory" is a bit unfair, isn't it? It's not exactly Vincent Van Gogh territory!

The thread is about an extract from the Aberconway version of the MM which, as you know reads:

"Nobody ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer unless possibly it was the City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square".

You can like it, or you can like it not, but that is what he wrote. The suggestion is that we consider the possibility that he may not have been mistaken, misinformed and /or mendacious and may have meant exactly what he said. Assessing the implications of such a possibility is not a "fantasy theory", but an analysis of the text as it appears in the document.

The document reads: "City PC who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square"
It does not read "cigarette salesman who was leaving a club on Dukes Place". That may be what is meant; it is not what is written.

The notion that a very senior police officer may have meant what he wrote may not be one you agree with. I can live with that. It is not, however, a "fantasy theory", because it is grounded in a literal reading of the text of an historical document.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Scott Nelson]

No, no. You're simply wrong. Somebody with more patience than I may or may not be so inclined to, to, to, to.....!!!! Forget it!

[Jonathan H]

Dear Tom

Sorry for the long goodbye, pal.

Look, posters here are not considering that not only is Lawende now a 'City PC' but that the suspect he has supposedly sighted is no longer a Gentile-featured man dressed a bit like a young sailor.

Instead it is a man chatting with Eddowes who supposedly resembles 'Kosminski', a suspect whom in 'Aberconway' he 'exonerates'.

One of the reasons Mac did this -- had to do this -- is because without this sighting, which primary sources show never happened, then the Polish Jew suspect is pretty lame -- as in the official evrsion of his 'Report'.

It needed sexing up for [anonymous] public dissemination and this is how Mac did it, and so it was dutifully and credulously repeated by Griffiths and Sims. The latter writer even has the non-existent cop giving the suspect the once-over at some future time.

What posters do here, time and again, is that they don't think through the entire source, or to whom it was composed, and in what [apologetical or propagandist] context.

They try and play amateur Sherlock and second-guess the contemporaneous police all along the line, which is just such a dead-end (though not if a researcher is postulating that all the police suspects were a handy smokescreen, that's fair enough)

Let's take the old, creaking paradigm for what it is: Macnaghten made another error -- actually two.

But then not only did he get the witness wrong he got the suspect wrong too; for it was really the other way round: a Jew sighting a Gentile (thi is the giveaway that Mac does recall it accurately for he uses the correct data contained within the tale to make the deflective switch).

[Tom_Wescott]

Probably so, Lynn.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

FB

Hello Tom. And it's his story I'd like to explore further. I think he may have something to offer.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

City PC fantasies

I thought it was agreed by all that there was no City PC witness and a simple mistake had been made? But if we're putting out fantasy theories for fun, I too have one....there was a police investigator at the time named Frederick Blenkisop (middle name James?), so WHAT IF he was the guy who spoke to the 'second man' near Mitre Square, and was referred to in the press under a different profession as to protect his identity, and perhaps some undercover work he was doing?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Horner and Co had delvery bays along that wall which required removable steps, these are clearly seen in Whiffins 1920s shots.

If the same was occuring in 88 then we have further obstructions to Harveys view. Add the shadows, breaking cloud covers and other issues then Harveys view isn't as straight forward as thought.

However, this would be something he was used to. I suspect he would have noted movement and if suspicious, investigated.

Obviously he didn't feel the need.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Bull's Eye

From his position at the end of Church Passage, a Bulls eye lamp would have had no effect whatsoever. So to simply state all Harvey had to do was shine a lamp upon the spot is not taking this into account.

Thanks, Monty. I hadn't realised that they were quite that feeble. So, unless JtR himself had a lamp of some kind - which seems unlikely - he would have gone unseen from the end of Church Passage. Assuming he was about his business when Harvey arrived, Harvey wouldn't have seen the Ripper - but the Ripper would (or at least could) have seen him, if only in silhouette?

Regards, Bridewell.

[The Good Michael]

So to simply state all Harvey had to do was shine a lamp upon the spot is not taking this into account.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this lamp was like a modern flashlight. I do suggest that I personally would go into the passage and look around because I'd want to know what was lurking in there, regardless if my light shone 5 inches or 5 meters.

Mike

[Wickerman]

From his position at the end of Church Passage, a Bulls eye lamp would have had no effect whatsoever. So to simply state all Harvey had to do was shine a lamp upon the spot is not taking this into account.

Quite so, there was a thread covering this lantern and its range, I can't remember exactly but 5ft comes to mind.


Lanterns were intended for close up scrutiny; peoples faces at night, picking up evidence on the footpath, or checking doorlocks or window clasps, etc. not assisting longrange vision at night, for this they were totally hopeless.

"Jack" could have been waving to Harvey across the square but because Harvey was stood under a wall lamp he wouldn't have seen a blessed thing.

Regards, Jon S.

[Scott Nelson]

The key point in Bromleys article is that the killer had left by the time Harvey had reached the end of Church Passage. Whilst I'm not completely sold on that I am willing to sway with it.

My conclusion, some years before, is that if it was Harvey, he likely encountered a suspect coming out of St. James Place when he was patrolling on Little Duke Street, or he encountered the suspect walking north on Duke Street after the suspect had emerged from Church Passage.

[lynn cates]

address

Hello Neil. Thanks for posting these. Very interesting.

You refer to the address?

Cheers.
LC