Ripper Notes #28 - "The Legend Continues"

[aspallek]

I suppose since I've had a few debates with Andy about Druitt over the past few months I thought I'd make a comment regarding his article.

While I applaud Andy for his efforts, his article doesn't convince me that Druitt could have visited the East End, it did appear to me that Andy seems determined to place Druitt near the East End. Cannon Street Station is not as Andy has said "a very few minutes' walk from the East End". And then says "it's only a 13 minutes walk from Mitre Square". You would have to go past Mitre Square/Aldgate to get to the East End, which would put the East End at least 15 to 20 minutes walk from Cannon Street, hardly a very few minutes.

Hi Rob,

I respect your right to disagree and to be "unconvinced." However, I walked from Cannon Street station to Mitre Square just a year ago in 13 minutes and that is with modern traffic and traffic lights. It probably would have taken less time in 1888. I walked directly but did not rush.

Is 13-minutes "very few minutes?" That's a fair point. I probably should not have used the qualifier "very." That's a fair criticism, Rob. On the other hand, we can quibble over whether it is 13 minutes, 15 minutes, or even 20 minutes. I don't think that makes a big difference.

Did you really mean to imply that Druitt couldn't have visited the East End? That's what the above implies.

At any rate, Rob, at least you seem to acknowledge the likelihood that Druitt repeated passed through Cannon Street.

[Ash]

I should have done this earlier. This is a close up of the area (hopefully Philip wont mind me posting it). I think it's clear that it is the back yard.

Nope, sorry, to me that makes it look even less like an opening to the outside. I'm also looking at the copy on the back cover of your book which I think is the clearest version. It still looks to me like light reflecting back off a polished matt surface.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi all. Having the original photo, I can confirm it is indeed the backyard. No doubt there will still be a placing of fingers in ears and strains of 'la-la'ing as debate continues.

If you're looking for an explanation as to why the area covered appears so small, it is due to the position of the sun only illuminating part of the yard. It is certainly not a reflection from the staircase, as you can see the line of it running down the left of the detail Rob has posted.

I'm not getting into the suspect issue. Suspect issues are suspect. All convictions within this realm makes my feelings of credibility for each suspect namer lessen a little, though I'm sure they can live with that.

PHILIP

[Septic Blue]

Ripperologist 1:

"Aaron Kosminski is not a viable suspect, because we have no evidence that he ever visited the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. And why, in God's name, would he have ever done so? That part of Hanbury Street was still decidedly Gentile in 1888, and he would have had no reason to go there".

Ripperologist 2:

"But, he could have easily covered the distance between 3 Sion Square and 29 Hanbury Street in less than ten minutes. And if he was a truly compulsive killer, he might have simply followed his nose when hunting his prey: Going wherever that prey was likely to be available - Hanbury Street, George Yard, Buck's Row, etc... - regardless of any threat that Gentile yobs might have posed".

Ripperologist 1:

"Oh, for f*ck's sake; that's absolute bullsh*t! Kosminski could not possibly have covered that distance in less than twelve minutes; and you know it. And that's assuming of course, that his family allowed him to cross Whitechapel Road by himself".


Colin

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all!

From what I remember, when you walked through the 29 Hanbury Street passage, the staircase was at the end and you had to make a quick right around it to get to the backdoor. If that's so, I believe what we're seeing is the staircase?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dan Norder]

Rob and Philip have more photos of that passage in their book, and others exist, so any judgments made on just this one aren't going to be as helpful as looking at the set.

[Tom_Wescott]

Did anyone else's RN arrive 'Postage Due'? I had to go to the post office and pay fifty cents to get mine, even though Dan plastered it with stamps. I've read only Wolf's exceptional Feigenbaum essay so far (I wonder what Trevor has to say about it!) and can't wait to read the rest, particularly Andy's since so much is being said about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ash]

Sorry Phil, but my fingers are firmly in my ears and la la la I'm not listening.

Looking at the photograph tells you everything you need to know to say that is not the back door.

The shadows under the shop sign are long, there is dark shadow under the door jamb, and light only penetrates a foot or so into the passage. There is also shadow slightly to the right of the drainpipe. As that section of Hanbury Street ran almost due East-West, that indicates that the sun is slightly to the South and West. Therefore I would estimate that the photograph was taken in either early or late summer, and very shortly after mid-day.

The shadows are also deep, indicating that the day was clear and very bright. Transporting all that information to the back yard, then, the shadow of the building (three storeys) would project at most three to four feet into the yard. The shadow of the fence would be minimal, a few inches at most. And with the yard being lower than the level of the passage, by three steps, if you take the line of perspective from the eye of the cameraman through the passage to the back, the line of shadow from the building would not be visible. It isn't an issue.

Therefore, if what we are looking at is the open back door, you would see visible daylight all the way down to the floor level. You cannot, therefore it isn't.

Now, looking at the photograph on page 65 of your book, it is also obvious that even standing in the passage, the back door is barely visible, and the top part of it is hidden behind the bend in the stairs. It also looks as if the steps down begin inside.

Also, looking at the lines of perspective on the walls, you can see that the photographer was not a tall man, probably about 5 feet 8 or 9. The photograph is taken from the street, which you can see from the amount of pavement in front (in the version on the back of the book), so he is also a few inches down from the front door entrance.

So taking that line of perspective, and matching it up to the page 65 photo, I would be confident in saying that what we are looking at is the underside of the bend of the stairs, this being the only light coloured object, surrounded by dark coloured objects, and as can be seen in that interior photograph, the surface does indeed reflect light back in the direction of the camera (there is a glare from it near the bottom.)

Not that any of this really matters a whole heap!

[Dan Norder]

Tom,

You seriously had postage due? I weighed these before mailing them, and some of them I even put enough extra postage to cover the rate for the next higher weight (I had a bunch of stamps I wanted to use up). They all should have been right.

Anyone who did have to pay postage please email me so we can sort that out.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

I respect your right to disagree and to be "unconvinced." However, I walked from Cannon Street station to Mitre Square just a year ago in 13 minutes and that is with modern traffic and traffic lights. It probably would have taken less time in 1888. I walked directly but did not rush.

Is 13-minutes "very few minutes?" That's a fair point. I probably should not have used the qualifier "very." That's a fair criticism, Rob. On the other hand, we can quibble over whether it is 13 minutes, 15 minutes, or even 20 minutes. I don't think that makes a big difference.

Did you really mean to imply that Druitt couldn't have visited the East End? That's what the above implies.

At any rate, Rob, at least you seem to acknowledge the likelihood that Druitt repeated passed through Cannon Street.

Hi Andy,

I did the walk from Cannon Street to Aldgate Pump today and it took me twelve and a half minutes. At a leisurely pace and a further four minutes to get to the junction of Aldgate High Street and Whitechapel High Street, where the East End begins. So we are talking 16 to 17 minutes from Cannon Street to the East End, that's not even a few minutes to me.

I didn't mean to imply Druitt couldn't have visited the East End, of course he could have. I just don't believe there is any reason why he should have.

I don't think I did acknowledge that Druitt repeatedly passed through Cannon Street. I can't prove he didn't anymore than you can prove he did .

Rob

[Mike Covell]

Hi Guys,

It makes sense that it is the garden area through an open door, you can see the grass/shrubbery on the floor of the yard, the fence, top of the fence and something beyond the fence (possibly a clothes line).

[Septic Blue]

Ripperologist 1:

"Aaron Kosminski is not a viable suspect, because we have no evidence that he ever visited the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. And why, in God's name, would he have ever done so? That part of Hanbury Street was still decidedly Gentile in 1888, and he would have had no reason to go there".

Ripperologist 2:

"But, he could have easily covered the distance between 3 Sion Square and 29 Hanbury Street in less than ten minutes. And if he was a truly compulsive killer, he might have simply followed his nose when hunting his prey: Going wherever that prey was likely to be available - Hanbury Street, George Yard, Buck's Row, etc... - regardless of any threat that Gentile yobs might have posed".

Ripperologist 1:

"Oh, for f*ck's sake; that's absolute bullsh*t! Kosminski could not possibly have covered that distance in less than twelve minutes; and you know it. And that's assuming of course, that his family allowed him to cross Whitechapel Road by himself".

I didn't mean to imply Druitt couldn't have visited the East End, of course he could have. I just don't believe there is any reason why he should have.

Hi Rob,

Assuming that Annie Chapman's murderer did not actually live at 29 Hanbury Street, we can rest assured that he entered it's back yard for one reason, and one reason alone: To kill Annie Chapman.

If Druitt was a compulsive killer, who had a particular taste for the sort of alcoholic, destitute, middle-age dolly-mop, that apparently tended to congregate in and around Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street, from all other parts of the metropolis, then so be it. No other reason for his being there need be addressed.


Colin

[Rob Clack]

Hi Colin,

Should be quite forward to find out then

Of course add another 15 minutes on to the times and it would be 30 minutes from Bucks Row. Risky.

All the best

Rob

[Robert]

Hi Rob and Stephen

Thanks for the info.

[Ben]

Hi Colin,

Trouble is, there's about as much evidence that "Druitt was a compulsive killer, who had a particular taste for the sort of alcoholic, destitute, middle-age dolly-mop, that apparently tended to congregate in and around Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street, from all other parts of the metropolis" ...as there is evidence that he ever ventured into the East End, i.e. none.

All the best,
Ben