Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Fisherman 2 minutes ago.
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - by spyglass 30 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by Simon Wood 37 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by cjmorley 45 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by cjmorley 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by rjpalmer 1 hour and 29 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (54 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (19 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - (4 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1121  
Old 10-16-2016, 06:08 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post

Apart from having to fit the report into the available space, it was generally impossible to give a verbatim account of what was said - as you will be aware from personal experience, people can go all round the houses to say something simple, and in court a coherent story only emerges as a consequence of long and detailed questioning. The newspapers therefore paraphrased, gave the gist of what was said. As they still do. What was included was also dependent on what the sub-editor thought was important. That is why the newspaper reports are different. It has nothing to do with what the reporters wrote down at the inquest. And the same applies to almost all the material available to you, be it the surviving inquest documents or the statements given to the police immediately after the crime was committed. This is one reason why you should compare as many newspaper accounts of the same thing as possible.
Quite so Paul.
A number of theorists try to play the official inquest account against the press versions, or one press version against another, as if there are different versions of the same inquest doing the rounds.
This is absolutely wrong, it is always necessary to collate the various accounts to obtain a more complete picture of inquest testimony, not contest one against the other.

All the press accounts tell the same story, but they do not all provide the same pieces of the same story, for the very reasons you clearly outlined above - thankyou.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1122  
Old 10-16-2016, 06:28 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
agree
and thanks for grasping the point of my post-I guess its a tad too subtle for some here.

whats the farthest distance the killer could have gone in approx. 35 minutes returning to Goulston street by 2:20?

I would suggest that that distance marks out the radius of a circle within which the killer had his home/bolthole.
Absolutely, except that the time should be less than 35 minutes, due to the fact that he obviously went to his bolthole for a reason, and that reason must have taken time out of his journey.
Arguably, if we grant him 15 minutes as a minimum, perhaps 30 minutes max. at his bolthole to clean up and do something with those organs, then his travel time is cut to 20 mins each way - min. to about 27 mins each way - max.
Unfortunately, you could cover a lot of distance in the East End in 20 minutes.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1123  
Old 10-16-2016, 06:53 AM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,587
Default

Good morning Trevor, a thought occured to me and I am going to share it to help you.

The killer cutting a piece of Catherine Eddowes apron and taking it to Goulston Street has no bearing whatsoever on your theory that her killer did not remove her body parts, and instead those body parts were removed by 'someone' at the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane.

I don't agree with your theory the killer did not take her body parts, I think he did. But it has nothing to do with the apron.

Again, this is why I asked Phil, or I could ask you, where in the world did you get the idea that we think the sole reason the killer cut the piece of apron and took it was to carry the body parts in. You, Trevor seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that WE ALL, that is everyone is who had studied the case, thinks the killer cut and took the apron piece for one reason and one reason only, to carry the body parts.

When in fact, the police didn't think that at the time, that the apron piece was used to carry the body parts, or if they did think that, the idea didn't show up in any of the surviving police reports, nor in any of their memoirs. And none of the books written about Jack the Ripper propose the idea the killer took the apron piece to carry the body parts. Not Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow, Sugden, Begg, Evans, Tully, and the list goes on. None of the TV documentaries I've seen proposes the idea.

The only place I know the idea the killer used the apron to carry body parts was proposed was in one article written by Wickerman. A very nise article by the way. But just that one article.

So all this time, Trevor, you have been arguing against something that doesn't exist, what you think is the widespread universal belief, repeated over and over in Ripper books you've never read, that the killer cut the piece of apron because of the absolute necessity of his using it to carry the body parts. No such universal belief persists except in your imagination.

This has all been an incredible waste of everyone's time.

Instead, let's take a hypothetical. Your theory, Trevor. The killer did NOT take the body parts when murdering Catherine Eddowes. Okay. But he did cut the piece of apron and take it to Goulston Street, something which everyone except you agrees on.

See how that works? It's simple. I hope this is helpful,

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark

Last edited by Roy Corduroy : 10-16-2016 at 07:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1124  
Old 10-16-2016, 09:16 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Absolutely, except that the time should be less than 35 minutes, due to the fact that he obviously went to his bolthole for a reason, and that reason must have taken time out of his journey.
Arguably, if we grant him 15 minutes as a minimum, perhaps 30 minutes max. at his bolthole to clean up and do something with those organs, then his travel time is cut to 20 mins each way - min. to about 27 mins each way - max.
Unfortunately, you could cover a lot of distance in the East End in 20 minutes.
Thank you wicker
This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for, I suck at math and geometry.

And yes you could cover a lot of distance in 20 minutes but lets look at that a little closer. I doubt the killer was running the whole time. It would look way too suspicious and also I doubt someone could or would run constantly for twenty minutes, especially carrying a knife and internal organs. I think in all probably the killer exited mitre square at a brisk walk.

How many miles can someone travel in twenty minutes at a brisk walk?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1125  
Old 10-16-2016, 09:30 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,306
Default

It would obviously depend on the age and fitness of the individual, Abby. However, research has shown that even older men are capable of brisk walking at an average speed of 5.72 km/h, around 3.6 mph: see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962157

Therefore, on that basis, at least 1.2 miles. And, to put that into perspective, the whole of the City of London amounts to just 1.12 square miles.

Last edited by John G : 10-16-2016 at 09:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1126  
Old 10-16-2016, 09:33 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thank you wicker
This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for, I suck at math and geometry.

And yes you could cover a lot of distance in 20 minutes but lets look at that a little closer. I doubt the killer was running the whole time. It would look way too suspicious and also I doubt someone could or would run constantly for twenty minutes, especially carrying a knife and internal organs. I think in all probably the killer exited mitre square at a brisk walk.

How many miles can someone travel in twenty minutes at a brisk walk?
Googled it, Abby:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines brisk walking as being at a pace of three miles per hour or more (but not racewalking) or roughly 20 minutes per mile.

That equates to about five kilometers per hour or 12 minutes per kilometer."

1,66 kilometers would therefore be covered in twenty minutes.

PS. Just noticed that John G offered a little something on the same theme!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1127  
Old 10-16-2016, 09:38 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
It would obviously depend on the age and fitness of the individual, Abby. However, research has shown that even older men are capable of brisk walking at an average speed of 5.72 km/h, around 3.6 mph: see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962157

Therefore, on that basis, at least 1.2 miles.
Awesome!

Thanks johnG! I would posit that therefor the killers bolt hole/home is somewhere within a circle whose center is approx miter square with radius of approx. 1.2 miles.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1128  
Old 10-16-2016, 09:45 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Awesome!

Thanks johnG! I would posit that therefor the killers bolt hole/home is somewhere within a circle whose center is approx miter square with radius of approx. 1.2 miles.
Yes, I would agree, Abby.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1129  
Old 10-16-2016, 11:04 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
Good morning Trevor, a thought occured to me and I am going to share it to help you.

The killer cutting a piece of Catherine Eddowes apron and taking it to Goulston Street has no bearing whatsoever on your theory that her killer did not remove her body parts, and instead those body parts were removed by 'someone' at the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane.

I don't agree with your theory the killer did not take her body parts, I think he did. But it has nothing to do with the apron.

Again, this is why I asked Phil, or I could ask you, where in the world did you get the idea that we think the sole reason the killer cut the piece of apron and took it was to carry the body parts in. You, Trevor seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that WE ALL, that is everyone is who had studied the case, thinks the killer cut and took the apron piece for one reason and one reason only, to carry the body parts.

When in fact, the police didn't think that at the time, that the apron piece was used to carry the body parts, or if they did think that, the idea didn't show up in any of the surviving police reports, nor in any of their memoirs. And none of the books written about Jack the Ripper propose the idea the killer took the apron piece to carry the body parts. Not Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow, Sugden, Begg, Evans, Tully, and the list goes on. None of the TV documentaries I've seen proposes the idea.

The only place I know the idea the killer used the apron to carry body parts was proposed was in one article written by Wickerman. A very nise article by the way. But just that one article.

So all this time, Trevor, you have been arguing against something that doesn't exist, what you think is the widespread universal belief, repeated over and over in Ripper books you've never read, that the killer cut the piece of apron because of the absolute necessity of his using it to carry the body parts. No such universal belief persists except in your imagination.

This has all been an incredible waste of everyone's time.

Instead, let's take a hypothetical. Your theory, Trevor. The killer did NOT take the body parts when murdering Catherine Eddowes. Okay. But he did cut the piece of apron and take it to Goulston Street, something which everyone except you agrees on.

See how that works? It's simple. I hope this is helpful,

Roy
Roy
Perhaps you might want to read this and then take the blinkers off?

I have said before that the apron in my opinion is of very little evidential value in the grand scheme of things. BUt when you look at the four reasons that have been given by researches over the years for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece they simply dont stand up to close scrutiny.

Eliminate those and you are left with the fact that the apron piece was connected to the victim and Goulston Street. So you have to delve deeper into the apron piece, and where did it come from and how it got to Goulston Street.

If the killer didnt cut it, or tear it for any of those four reasons then why would he bother to cut or tear it at all? There is no logical explanation for this.

Having regards to the question of whether or not she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder comes into play based on Collards lists. If she wasnt wearing an apron then she at some time before her murder was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron which at some time had been part of a full apron.

The short time the killer had with the victim the position of her clothes when found dont add weight to the killer being able to cut or tear it and take it away.

If that had been the case then following her release from custody it is not known where she went. We know she lived a stones throw from Goulston Street, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she decided to make her way home.

If that be the case there are several explanations for her depositing the piece of apron herself.

The first has already been discussed many time but I will go over it again. This is that she could have been using one of the pieces as a sanitary device and discarded it herself when perhaps going under the archway to go to the toilet. You have to remember that the piece was described as smeared or spotted with blood, on one side and also had traces of faecal matter on it, part of it was wet. i know the wetness was described by a witness as being blood but we have to keep an open mind. All of those traces found on the cloth are consistent with the possibility that it had been between her legs as a sanitary device.

The other explanation is that she could have met a punter on her way home and went under the archway to indulge in some sexual activity and then used one of the pieces of apron to wipe herself down and then discard it.

I hope now the blinkers have come off things are much clearer to you, because the mystery of the apron piece is not as clear cut as you and others perceive ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1130  
Old 10-16-2016, 12:24 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;396298

Quote:
Roy

Perhaps you might want to read this and then take the blinkers off?

I have said before that the apron in my opinion is of very little evidential value in the grand scheme of things. BUt when you look at the four reasons that have been given by researches over the years for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece they simply dont stand up to close scrutiny.
Hi Trevor,

I would like to make a few comments here if you donīt mind.

I have no problem with your theory even though I do not think that it is correct.

Anyway, you say here that there are four reasons given by researches for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece and you say that they donīt stand up to close scrutiny.

I do not know what these four reasons are. But I am sure that the reason I have found is not one of them and, more important, that reason does stand up to scrutiny very well indeed.

I am not able to discuss it yet, but just to let you know: there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. It is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.

Quote:
If the killer didnt cut it, or tear it for any of those four reasons then why would he bother to cut or tear it at all? There is no logical explanation for this.

Having regards to the question of whether or not she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder comes into play based on Collards lists. If she wasnt wearing an apron then she at some time before her murder was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron which at some time had been part of a full apron.

The short time the killer had with the victim the position of her clothes when found dont add weight to the killer being able to cut or tear it and take it away.

If that had been the case then following her release from custody it is not known where she went. We know she lived a stones throw from Goulston Street, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she decided to make her way home.

If that be the case there are several explanations for her depositing the piece of apron herself.

The first has already been discussed many time but I will go over it again. This is that she could have been using one of the pieces as a sanitary device and discarded it herself when perhaps going under the archway to go to the toilet. You have to remember that the piece was described as smeared or spotted with blood, on one side and also had traces of faecal matter on it, part of it was wet. i know the wetness was described by a witness as being blood but we have to keep an open mind. All of those traces found on the cloth are consistent with the possibility that it had been between her legs as a sanitary device.

The other explanation is that she could have met a punter on her way home and went under the archway to indulge in some sexual activity and then used one of the pieces of apron to wipe herself down and then discard it.

I hope now the blinkers have come off things are much clearer to you, because the mystery of the apron piece is not as clear cut as you and others perceive ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I really appreciate everything you write here, Trevor, and I think it is very important. Everything you say has an explanation, whatever statement you make. Good critical thinking.

Best wishes, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 10-16-2016 at 12:26 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.