Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Point To Ponder : Police Patrol On Dorset Street November 8th, 1888

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Why didn't Hutchinson mention...or maybe, why wouldn't Hutchinson mention seeing him that night to Abberline three days later ?

    Any ideas ?
    My idea is this.
    The complete interrogation paperwork which resulted from his interview with Abberline has not survived, we have no idea what he told Abberline.

    The initial witness statement he gave, which will have been used by Abberline in the subsequent interrogation, does not include this question likely because from a witnesses point of view it was of no importance.
    Regards, Jon S.
    "
    The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
    " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
    Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

    Comment


    • #17
      Neil, all...

      Has an effort to find out who Constable 63L was ever been undertaken ?
      Thank you.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #18
        I'd agree that police were probably not frightened to go down Dorset St alone Howard - but I suppose it depends on the PC on duty that night

        I just checked on the quote I was thinking of in which it was said "as a rule" policemen go down Dorset St in pairs, but that was from 1901

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
          Thanks Wick !
          I was thinking...just my opinion at this point in the discussion...that Hutchinson would have been just as if not more likely to have gone to the police because of a constable on patrol seeing him that night rather than Sarah Lewis ( whose comments were publicized) .
          Good point, but he does say that a friend at the Victoria Home talked him into coming forward. It would help if we knew what this friend said to him.
          Regards, Jon S.
          "
          The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
          " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
          Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

          Comment


          • #20
            Illustrated Police News
            April 9, 1887
            ************
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]

            Comment


            • #21
              KT has something about a Constable Morten, 63L...

              http://victorianripper.niceboard.org...-constable-63l

              Is 1865 too early?

              Comment


              • #22
                It looks to me that KT's PC is PC Henry Morton who is mentioned in the Old Bailey records for 1850

                http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...0304-663&terms

                He looks in his late 40's early 50's in the illustration so it could be him?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                  Neil, all...

                  Has an effort to find out who Constable 63L was ever been undertaken ?
                  Thank you.
                  Yes How,

                  As Paul states there is a Morton however he goes beyond the usual 25 years service. Going off memory, there was also a PC Rouse with that number.

                  It was something I worked on with Keith Skinner some months back but to no avail. However I must confess other matters arose for me to work on and I'm not aware if Keith has been successful. I am aware that his work with Patricia Cornwell is due soon and she states (on Twitterr) there's new bits of info in this updated edition of her book, so who knows.

                  Monty

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Neems, Neil...

                    Thanks very much for the information !
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Very good info, Monty, Wick, and all.

                      Monty,

                      Only bits of new stuff? I thought she had dropped Sickert as a suspect and was going a different route with this new Ripper book?

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        Very good info, Monty, Wick, and all.

                        Monty,

                        Only bits of new stuff? I thought she had dropped Sickert as a suspect and was going a different route with this new Ripper book?

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        I'm not party to that Tom, all I know regarding Cornwell I've seen on Twitter, and she states that "Those asking about #JacktheRipper there will be neww info and photos and evidence for you to look at for youself".

                        Make of that what you will.

                        Monty

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Resurrecting the ole thread, but I think it is a great question How proposed in his initial post. To add to it, after seeing the body of Mary Kelly upon the bed, Bowyer immediately went to McCarthy. Then McCarthy took a look and after gathering himself he followed Bowyer to the Commercial Street Police Station.

                          So, Hutchinson stands across from Millers court for 45 minutes and the only policeman he claims to see is at the Commercial Street end in that time frame. PC 63L (Morten?) did not hear anything or see anyone unusual and was supposedly patrolling Dorset Street. Meanwhile, the very next morning after the body is found, Bowyer and McCarthy run all the way to the Commercial Street Police station, passing Spitalfields Market and a presumably busy Commercial Street on a Friday morning, and they don't see a PC or mention the murder to anyone along the way? I would think they would have found the closest person they could find (Police wise) or tell the nearest bystander to fetch a PC and they could stay by the scene. After all, additional police force was added a few weeks prior to the murder. One had to be closer than the station, no?

                          Am I missing something here?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Hi, Jerry!

                            I don't have a direct answer but since we are pondering there are a few thoughts to bring up. This is sort of a compilation of things others have written over the years. Like I have said before police action and London geography are not my best subjects.

                            It has been suggested that McCarthy wanted to contact a certain policeman that he knew and that is why he went where he did. Some see something sinister that Bowyer was sent off first and McCarthy followed. There is even a Casebook dissertation that suggests McCarthy entered Mary's room to obtain any money she may have had for the rent!

                            Keeping it simple, if the first beat cop had been notified, surely folks in the crowded street would pick up on the action and the mob would have ensued faster than it did. Maybe McCarthy wanted to keep it as quiet as possible and reasonably so.

                            Considering the door was eventually forced with a pick axe I wonder if McCarthy could/did secure the door with a padlock, perhaps one he grabbed and subsequently could not find the key for. Surely he had ways of securing those rooms if the tenants had been evicted, keys lost, etc.? Maybe McCarthy thought he had locked the killer inside. If the killer broke windows to escape he would attract a lot of attention.

                            A simpler explanation for McCarthy's delay is simply that he had details to attend to in his shop.

                            The question about Hutchinson is very interesting. It has been written that police didn't like to go down Dorset Street in pairs because of the danger. Maybe they didn't patrol any more than they had to.

                            Something that could be another point to ponder is, why did Sarah Lewis feel safe enough to walk alone through those wicked streets at 2:30 am? She didn't mention seeing any police but she did mention a possible JtR. ANYTHING could have been--and probably was--lurking in the passage and courtyard at Millers Court.

                            Personally I figure Jack left just before the sun came up. And another point I have been pondering is the multiple press reports that Mary's black velvet jacket was missing. Abberline reported finding part of a woman's skirt in the fireplace. There are multiple problems with burning a jacket and I would assume more than a (jacket) skirt hem would be left due to thicknesses of seams, etc. Mary was stout, perhaps 5' 7" tall. Would her jacket have fit Jack? Did he leave the court somewhat looking like a woman? That would not have been suspicious to a PC who knew a lot of women lived at Millers Court, who perhaps had seen Prater go in and out to get her breakfast at Mrs. Ringers, etc.

                            But none of this explains why no policeman noticed Hutchinson loitering. THAT is an interesting subject!
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                              But none of this explains why no policeman noticed Hutchinson loitering. THAT is an interesting subject!
                              I agree Anna, it could lead to whether he was telling the truth, or lying.

                              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                              Did he leave the court somewhat looking like a woman? That would not have been suspicious to a PC who knew a lot of women lived at Millers Court, who perhaps had seen Prater go in and out to get her breakfast at Mrs. Ringers, etc.
                              Or did he arrive looking like a woman and burn his own female attire? Thomas Conway Junior... cough.. cough. Kidding! Kind of.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                                I agree Anna, it could lead to whether he was telling the truth, or lying.



                                Or did he arrive looking like a woman and burn his own female attire? Thomas Conway Junior... cough.. cough. Kidding! Kind of.
                                Two things I really want concerning this case: videotaped interview of Joe Barnett and a complete inventory of what was found in Mary's room.

                                What Abberline found in the fire seems to account for Mrs. Harvey's laundry and bonnet. Buttons off a man's shirt and the bonnet frame. Plus the hem of a woman's velvet skirt. But he also said, "a quantity of women's clothing" had been burned. One skirt and bonnet is hardly a "quantity of women's clothing."

                                If the "laundry", bonnet and one skirt were burned it sounds to me like the killer tossed out of place items into the fire. It was said Mary's clothes were folded neatly on a chair at the end of the bed. I figure the velvet skirt may have been stretched over a table or chair to dry as I presume it would have been damp and soggy.

                                (If Mary really did have a black velvet jacket I figure she had a matched outfit of velvet bodice/skirt/jacket and that somewhat supports the tale of a box of costly dresses.)

                                Jack could have arrived in women's clothing, etc.

                                If he left in women's clothing, what was on his head? He burned perhaps the only bonnet. Maybe it didn't fit him.

                                BUT he could have worn the jacket and used the "marone pellarine", aka "red knitted cross over" around his head. We see women in the old pictures with shawls/large scarves around their heads. Since we have no inventory we don't know what happened to this garment she was said to have worn the night before.

                                However, what if Jack wore it down the street and discarded it? Someone would have snatched it up ASAP. Could THAT be the origin of Maxwell and Maurice Lewis seeing "Mary" wearing this distinctive garment the next morning? If another girl reasonably resembled Mary AND wore such a distinctive and bright garment, it could have led to assumptions, IMO. There are lots of possibilities. Such as the girl who was hungover, that Mrs. Maxwell spoke to, would hardly correct the greeting by saying, "I ain't Mary Jane...I just found this old rag in the street...."

                                Maybe the shawl was discarded near a brick wall under chalk writing that said: The Juwes are not the men who didn't just do more nothing at 'Cartin's Court. (The Ban Me smilie is not available today.)
                                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X