Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jacob The Ripper (T. & N. I'anson)

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the contents of the book - particularly the new information about Jacob Levy.
    -CGP-

    It's possibly a sign that there aren't any contentious claims or speculations being presented as facts in the book. I haven't read anything which could be considered the author's opinion being turned into the final word.

    Ironically, books based on a writer's personal interpretation of the case evidence will generate more discussion...and so will books that are haphazardly cobbled together.
    I think you’re right How. There aren’t any leaps of faith which you can often get when a suspect is being discussed. The authors have presented their findings honestly and admit when they can’t be certain of something. The lack of evidence for an exit at the back of the building in Goulston Street for example. Plus they’re not claiming that Levy was certainly the ripper; only that he’s a good suspect.
    I was reading a little about Hyam Hyams too and he seems an interesting suspect. He was also in the asylum at Stone which is interesting if it’s true about Robert Anderson’s wife’s claim.
    Regards

    Michael🔎


    " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
      I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the contents of the book - particularly the new information about Jacob Levy.
      -CGP-

      It's possibly a sign that there aren't any contentious claims or speculations being presented as facts in the book. I haven't read anything which could be considered the author's opinion being turned into the final word.

      Ironically, books based on a writer's personal interpretation of the case evidence will generate more discussion...and so will books that are haphazardly cobbled together.

      People seem to be motivated to write about the stuff they don't like or object to. The good stuff gets ignored. It's sad to see the bad stuff get ublicity that way and it can be very demoralising.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
        It was in Long's interest to emphasise that he had prevented anyone from leaving the building, because the suggestion was that he should have searched the whole building immediately, and not just the staircases. So if there was no back entrance, why should he reply "Not from the front", rather than just saying "No?"

        At the inquest maybe Long didn't know whether or not there was a rear exit and simply stated that nobody had left from the front, which is where he'd left a policeman with instructions to see if anyone entered or left. His word therefore suggest ignorance of whether there was an exit there, not that he wasunable to say that anyone had left through one?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
          The lack of evidence for an exit at the back of the building in Goulston Street for example.
          Hi Michael. Did Harrison's photograph convince you at all? Assuming he had the right building, it looks like there was a passage running through to the back of the building, doesn't it? What sort of building, doesn't have a rear exit?
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #35
            Each stairwell has/had an entrance onto the street (in the doorway of which the graffiti was written and the apron left) and an entrance/exit/doorway to an interior courtyard. That second exit is a mirror image of the one on the street side and it connects to it via a shortish corridor from which the stairs are also accessed.
            A policeman on the street side would be aware of someone coming down the stairs and out the back way - unless they crept around like flannelfoot.

            From the interior courtyard there were/are opening to Wentworth Street and Old Castle Street.

            It wasn't a one way in one way out sort of place.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
              Hi Michael. Did Harrison's photograph convince you at all? Assuming he had the right building, it looks like there was a passage running through to the back of the building, doesn't it? What sort of building, doesn't have a rear exit?
              It certainly looks like it Roger and is there such a thing as a building with no rear entrance? It’s doesn’t seem likely.
              Regards

              Michael🔎


              " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

              Comment


              • #37
                Thanks to all for their replies.

                If the blocks did have rear entrances I think that would be interesting becaise - if I understand correctly - going in at the front of 108-119 and out at the back would have been the shortest route from Jacob Levy's home to those of his mother and brother. So he might be very familiar with the place where the apron piece and the graffito were found.

                But although the Goad Plan isn't very helpful in indicating the entrances, the Ordnance Survey maps seem more helpful. Below are two extracts which suggest that each block had either an entrance at the front or an entrance at the back, but not both. And it seems that in the blocks on the east side of Goulston Street the stairwell extended only about halfway into the building, with the space behind it being divided between the flats on either side.



                The photo posted by RJP seems conclusive as to the existence of a back door, but only if it shows the right block. Apparently the blocks on Wentworth Street did have back doors. Could it be a photo of one of those?

                Then there is Long's inquest testimony. If he simply didn't know whether there was a back door, as Paul suggests, that would explain his answer. But what puzzles me is that he was also claiming to have searched the staircases. I don't understand how he could have searched the staircases but not known whether there was a back door. Nevertheless, he certainly claimed that he didn't know at the time whether there was a back door. It's puzzling.

                The only other report of the inquest I can find that mentions this question is the one in the Times of 12 October 1888:

                Comment


                • #38
                  These are photos of the rear of the buildings I took in 2006.

                  This one is looking south, the window on the right is I believe at the rear of 108 to 119.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	1 looking south.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	127.3 KB
ID:	561458

                  This one is looking north. There are three yellow metal fences? The middle on which you can see all of is I believe where the rear of 108 to 119 is. There is a door to the right but that looked too modern to me. There are no doors anywhere else or what looks like door frames that had been filled in. I don't believe there was a rear exit in 1888.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	2  looking north.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	134.8 KB
ID:	561459

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                    These are photos of the rear of the buildings I took in 2006.

                    This one is looking south, the window on the right is I believe at the rear of 108 to 119.

                    [ATTACH]21565[/ATTACH]

                    This one is looking north. There are three yellow metal fences? The middle on which you can see all of is I believe where the rear of 108 to 119 is. There is a door to the right but that looked too modern to me. There are no doors anywhere else or what looks like door frames that had been filled in. I don't believe there was a rear exit in 1888.

                    [ATTACH]21566[/ATTACH]

                    Thanks for these photos. I think it's useful to compare them with this one of the upper storeys at the back:
                    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3233439033

                    I presume the windows and doors at ground level must be new, and the bricked up windows indicate the original bottom storey at basement level. I suppose one obvious indication would be whether the flats at the bottom had fewer rooms than those above, as I suppose they would have to if there were a back entrance. I don't have Ancestry, but it should be recorded in the later censuses, shouldn't it?


                    (PS Comparing that photo of the upper storeys with the Harrison one posted by RJP, the layout looks different, so I think it is one of the other blocks.)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      There is a photo of "The rear of 108-119 Wentworth Dwellings, 1976", John Bennett, Post 1151 on Casebook, East End Photographs and Drawings:

                      https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ge77#post95504

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post
                        There is a photo of "The rear of 108-119 Wentworth Dwellings, 1976", John Bennett, Post 1151 on Casebook, East End Photographs and Drawings:

                        https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ge77#post95504
                        That's not the rear of 108 to 119.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                          That's not the rear of 108 to 119.
                          Thanks Rob! Is it completely wrong or more to the right (108-119)?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post
                            Thanks Rob! Is it completely wrong or more to the right (108-119)?
                            It looks to me to be the one to the right facing Wentworth Street. The block which had 108 - 119 did not have windows on the side.

                            Rob

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                              It looks to me to be the one to the right facing Wentworth Street. The block which had 108 - 119 did not have windows on the side.

                              Rob
                              Ah okay, Rob! Thanks again.

                              Karsten.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Btw.: I seem to remember that there is an elderly man who grew up in the Goulston Street area and knows this area and its buildings very well. I think it was a "Spitalfields" thread. How had posted there a lot of links. You can see there a rear of a building in Goulston Street with staircases which led to seperate floors, no back doors if I recall correctly. Howard certainly knows more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X