Why the Gap?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Others look at exactly the same evidence as yourself, however, their "deductions" may be totally at odds with yours, or they may agree. Eitherway those deductions are NOT facts, they are suppositions, based on your interpretation of the evidence, but nevertheless still suppositions.

Steve

I'm not at all sure what this is about.

I said there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields, and gave three pieces of evidence, all of which point to Spitalfields.

(A Canadian researcher calculated that he lived in Flower and Dean Street, but I did not pinpoint the street.)

Then someone comes along and says, 'that's not a fact'.

What actually is the point of that interjection?

Did I ever use the word 'fact'?

Does anyone here actually think that the route taken by the murderer, following the two murders he committed in a single night, is consistent with his having lived in Whitechapel, where Kosminski lived, or perhaps Blackheath, where Druitt lived, or Bethnal Green where Lechmere lived?

[Elamarna]

I'm not at all sure what this is about.

I said there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields, and gave three pieces of evidence, all of which point to Spitalfields.

(A Canadian researcher calculated that he lived in Flower and Dean Street, but I did not pinpoint the street.)

Then someone comes along and says, 'that's not a fact'.

What actually is the point of that interjection?

Did I ever use the word 'fact'?

Does anyone here actually think that the route taken by the murderer, following the two murders he committed in a single night, is consistent with his having lived in Whitechapel, where Kosminski lived, or perhaps Blackheath, where Druitt lived, or Bethnal Green where Lechmere lived?

Given that we do not actually KNOW which direction the killer approached Goulston Street from, any final destination is possible.
While many suggest the killer went via Houndsditch and either Stoney lane up of it was open, or gravel lane, such is NOT an established fact .

So in answer to your question does anyone actually think the killer lived in the areas you mention, many do!

You also appear to discard the possibility that the killer used a bolt hole near to Goulston Street, and so his final destination may be in a completely different direction

Again you are see your deductions as being more than they are. They are only reasonable possibilities.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Given that we do not actually KNOW which direction the killer approached Goulston Street from, any final destination is possible.
While many suggest the killer went via Houndsditch and either Stoney lane up of it was open, or gravel lane, such is NOT an established fact .

So in answer to your question does anyone actually think the killer lived in the areas you mention, many do!

You also appear to discard the possibility that the killer used a bolt hole near to Goulston Street, and so his final destination may be in a completely different direction

Again you are see your deductions as being more than they are. They are only reasonable possibilities.

Thank you for calling my deductions reasonable possibilities.

I'm not sure what kind of bolt hole you have in mind.

Would it have been a police-proof bolt hole?

But, in any case, your idea of a bolt hole near Goulston Street does sound remarkably similar to my idea that he actually lived near Goulston Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is the ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the killer lived in Spitalfields?

[John Wheat]

What is the ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the killer lived in Spitalfields?

There is none Herlock.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What is the ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the killer lived in Spitalfields?

I refer you to my earlier post, in which I gave the three pieces of evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I asked for evidence much earlier in the thread all you've done is given suppositions. Either provide some evidence or keep your rubbish theories to yourself.

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that remark before I report you.

[Elamarna]

Thank you for calling my deductions reasonable possibilities.

I'm not sure what kind of bolt hole you have in mind.

Would it have been a police-proof bolt hole?

But, in any case, your idea of a bolt hole near Goulston Street does sound remarkably similar to my idea that he actually lived near Goulston Street.

A bolt hole near Goulston Street does not mean he lived near it, only that he had access to a place, maybe friends, family, work.
As I said it depends to a great extent which way he came towards Goulston.
He could have come any number of ways, each route indicating a different destination.

Yes some of you deductions are not unreasonable, but they are not the only options.
The ideas other people mentioned having looked at the same evidence may be just as reasonable

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I refer you to my earlier post, in which I gave the three pieces of evidence.

1. The route he took following the second murder on the night of the double murder, when he was obviously returning to base, was to Spitalfields.

He could have had a bolt hole which could have meant that he didn’t actually live in Spitalfields. Or perhaps the route he took was due to a police presence. Maybe he had taken a detour to avoid police?

2. The long delay before he actually left the piece of apron in Goulston St means that he must have lived somewhere nearby in Spitalfields.

Or that he had a bolt hole or that he deposited the cloth on his first pass but Long didn’t notice it first time

3. The fact that the latest time at which he stayed at a murder scene, would have had the most blood on his person, and would have wanted to travel the least distance back to his lodgings, occured in Spitalfields

But how would he have known beforehand that Kelly had a room of her own, allowing him to do what he did. Plus with a murder indoors he would have had an opportunity to clean up before he went out.

Im certainly not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived in Spitalfields because he might have done and I accept that living locally might have given him some advantages but it’s nothing like overwhelming evidence. I wouldn’t even call it particularly strong evidence.. Plus there’s a downside to being a local of course. You have a greater chance of being recognised. A vague description to the police is one thing but a “I’m pretty sure I saw Fred Smith leaving Hanbury Street that morning…” is a different ball game. The old saying ‘don’t s#*t on your own doorstep.’

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Im certainly not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived in Spitalfields because he might have done and I accept that living locally might have given him some advantages but it’s nothing like overwhelming evidence. I wouldn’t even call it particularly strong evidence.. Plus there’s a downside to being a local of course. You have a greater chance of being recognised. A vague description to the police is one thing but a “I’m pretty sure I saw Fred Smith leaving Hanbury Street that morning…” is a different ball game. The old saying ‘don’t s#*t on your own doorstep.’

I don't understand the idea of a bolt hole if he's trying to evade capture by the police, and can't even imagine one.

The only logical thing to do was go home and deposit the kidney there.

Saying he may have had a bolt hole in Spitalfields seems like a way of conceding he did live in Spitalfields, but not in a room.

I'm aware that some people say Long might not have noticed the apron on his previous visit, but he did testify that he shone his torch under the archway entrance to the building and the apron was not there.

He had no motive to pretend he had done so; he could have said he did not shine his torch there at 2.20 a.m. because everything seemed quiet.


'how would he have known beforehand that Kelly had a room of her own'

He knew that his next and last victim would have a room of her own because he had decided to commit his final murder indoors.

If Kelly had told him she did not have a room, he would have looked for someone else.

He intended to spend hours with her and leave about as late as he did and that necessitated doing it close to base.


'Plus with a murder indoors he would have had an opportunity to clean up before he went out.'


Is that a supposition or a fact?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A bolt hole near Goulston Street does not mean he lived near it, only that he had access to a place, maybe friends, family, work.
As I said it depends to a great extent which way he came towards Goulston.
He could have come any number of ways, each route indicating a different destination.

Yes some of you deductions are not unreasonable, but they are not the only options.
The ideas other people mentioned having looked at the same evidence may be just as reasonable

Steve

I don't actually understand why the route he took from Mitre Square to Goulston Street matters.

Now I see your point about a bolt-hole.

Well, it is my contention that the murderer was a loner and lived alone, because he would not have taken two uteri, a kidney and heart back home otherwise.

There is quite a collection of serial murderers who took trophies from their victims' home with them and I think they all lived alone - and I think usually they didn't take anything as personal as a heart.

I can't see the murderer going to visit friends or relatives with Eddowes' kidney and the piece of apron, soiled with blood and faeces.

Can you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't understand the idea of a bolt hole if he's trying to evade capture by the police, and can't even imagine one.

A bolt hole might have been a necessity if his personal/home circumstances didn’t allow him to come and go unnoticed or to store body parts?

The only logical thing to do was go home and deposit the kidney there.

But as I said, we don’t know his circumstances. Maybe he had a workshop or a storehouse that served the purpose?

Saying he may have had a bolt hole in Spitalfields seems like a way of conceding he did live in Spitalfields, but not in a room.

Im not saying that he did have a bolt hole. He might not have had one. It still doesn’t come close to proving that he lived in Spitalfields though.

I'm aware that some people say Long might not have noticed the apron on his previous visit, but he did testify that he shone his torch under the archway entrance to the building and the apron was not there.

He didn’t say anything at the inquest about shining his torch. Just that it wasn’t there. Can we be certain that he just didn’t notice it?

He had no motive to pretend he had done so; he could have said he did not shine his torch there at 2.20 a.m. because everything seemed quiet.

Or he could have just not bothered to look in the doorway but didn’t want to admit it to his superiors.


'how would he have known beforehand that Kelly had a room of her own'

He knew that his next and last victim would have a room of her own because he had decided to commit his final murder indoors.

If Kelly had told him she did not have a room, he would have looked for someone else.

He intended to spend hours with her and leave about as late as he did and that necessitated doing it close to base.

As we don’t know who the killer was it’s difficult to see how you can be so confident about this. It’s something that you can’t possibly know.


'Plus with a murder indoors he would have had an opportunity to clean up before he went out.'


Is that a supposition or a fact?


It’s a fact that being indoors allowed the killer an opportunity to clean up. He couldn’t have cleaned up in the street.

I just see no real reason for confidence that the killer lived in Spitalfields. He might have done but he might have lived elsewhere too. And I still think it’s worth asking - would the killer really have killed in the streets where he was seen on a daily basis? Surrounded by people that could recognise and put a name to him if they’d seen him?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Herlock Shomes:


I think that, like some other posters, you are being pedantic.

I could have written,

'I think that he knew that his next and last victim would have a room of her own because, in my opinion, he had decided to commit his final murder indoors.

It is also my hypothesis that if Kelly had told him she did not have a room, he would have looked for someone else.

It is my contention that he intended to spend hours with her and leave about as late as he did and that that, in my humble opinion, necessitated doing it close to base.'

That is not my writing style.

I do not see any need repeatedly to qualify every statement I make so that it will not be imagined that I am saying it is a proven fact, and, in my opinion, it is not something that my critics here are rigorously applying to their own writing.

[John Wheat]

I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that remark before I report you.

Fair enough. I withdraw my previous remark.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In reply to Herlock Shomes:


I think that, like some other posters, you are being pedantic.

I could have written,

'I think that he knew that his next and last victim would have a room of her own because, in my opinion, he had decided to commit his final murder indoors.

It is also my hypothesis that if Kelly had told him she did not have a room, he would have looked for someone else.

It is my contention that he intended to spend hours with her and leave about as late as he did and that that, in my humble opinion, necessitated doing it close to base.'

That is not my writing style.

I do not see any need repeatedly to qualify every statement I make so that it will not be imagined that I am saying it is a proven fact, and, in my opinion, it is not something that my critics here are rigorously applying to their own writing.

It’s not pedantry to dispute your original claim which is what I am doing:

“I said there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields.”

Which means that you are putting it close to a fact that the killer lived in Spitalfields. There is no such overwhelming evidence.