Why the Gap?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did not use the words 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'conclusive evidence,' incontrovertible evidence,' or even 'hard evidence.'

And I haven’t said that you did use any of those phrases. But surely you can see that ‘overwhelming evidence’ implies something close to a certainty?

Since two of the murders were committed in Spitalfields, and the bloody apron was found there, it's not exactly a provocative suggestion to say that he was living there.

And I haven’t said that it’s a provocative suggestion or even that I couldn’t have been the case just that there could be an alternative explanation.

I change my mind when I've seen evidence or reasoned argument that convinces me.

I changed my mind about the time of death in the Hanbury Street murder after an exchange with a very condescending individual on another forum, after re-examining the evidence.

But nothing anyone has said here in response to my three points has seemed to me at all convincing.

And there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing.

My first point is that the murderer travelled in a north-easterly direction to Spitalfields when he must have been returning to base.

The first objection was that he may have had a bolt hole.
I suppose someone else might say that Sir William Gull had a bolt hole, but in any case it is far-fetched to suggest that the murderer went with Eddowes' kidney and her bloodstained faeces-covered apron to a relative or friend's house.

Now, when I give his precise route to Spitalfields, you raise the question of timing, and what is actually meant by 1.42 a.m.
I think it's obvious that what I meant is that the murderer left the Square about two minutes before he expected Pc Watkins to enter it.
I didn't say whether I meant 1:42:00 or 1:42:30.
It's just an approximation.
I don't see how your raising the question of time has any bearing on the validity of my argument.

I mentioned the fact that he would have known (although I'm not sure that word is permitted, so I'll amend it to 'had reason to believe') that Pc Watkins would not be in front of him when he turned into Aldgate High Street.
He must have noticed Pc Harvey going down Church Passage at 1:40 (and in case of any misunderstanding, I don't mean necessarily 1:40:59) and this, I suggest, would have put him off leaving via Church Passage.

I haven’t raised the question of time.

My second point concerns Pc Long's testimony that the apron was not in Goulston Street at about 2.20 a.m., which suggests strongly that the murderer lived nearby.
In addition to the bolt-hole, we've heard that Long may have lied that he checked the entrance at 2.20.
I'm sorry, but I'm going by the evidence.
There is no reason to think that the murderer kept organs in a bolt-hole or that Long pretended to have checked at 2.20.

And there’s no evidence that he didn’t keep organs in a bolt hole or that Long couldn’t simply have missed the apron first time.

There is earwitness and medical evidence that the murderer left at about 5.45 a.m.
It is fanciful to suggest that he then made his way to Dorset (assuming he had played a match there the day before and had another match to play the next day)

You appear to be conflating the Kelly murder with the Nichols murder in regard to Druitt. Druitt is irrelevant as the evidence doesn’t provide him with an alibi. An absolutely proven fact which you appear to have difficulty accepting.

or Pickfords in Broad Street (with blood from Kelly's heart oozing through his clothes) to report for work, or Bethnal Green to the Lechmere residence, where after greeting his wife and nine children, he would presumably go to the pantry to deposit Kelly's heart.

But if the killer lived locally, as you believe, he would have had to have got those parts home somehow. I don’t see why you completely reject the suggestion of a bolt hole. A place where he wouldn’t have had to deal with nosey family members or friends.

Those are actually ridiculously far-fetched suggestions, but when I suggest that the murderer simply walked a short distance to his room in Spitalfields, all hell breaks loose!

Just being questioned and disagreed with hardly qualifies as ‘all hell breaking loose’ is something of an exaggeration. There’s nothing far fetched about a man catching a train. There’s nothing far fetched about a serial killer having a bolt hole. There’s nothing far fetched about a police man missing (or not noticing) a piece of rag in the early hours of the morning.

And…..there’s nothing far fetched about the possibility of the killer living in Spitalfields. We don’t know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

HI PI
Where and what do you think the ripper was doing in the hour or so in between the murder of Eddowes and when the apron was found?

Hi AB

Your name reminds me of the old Abbey National!

My theory is that he left Mitre Square via Mitre Street (although some here think Church Passage or another exit more likely because he would have wanted to avoid bumping into Watkins).

I think he left at about 1.42 a.m.

He turned left down Aldgate High Street, which meant that Pc Watkins could not be approaching him.

After Aldgate High Street becomes Whitechapel Rd, he turned left down Goulston St.

My guess is that as he was approaching Wentworth Dwellngs, he spotted PC Long, who was due there at around 1:50, and went home to deposit the kidney and lie low.

Another possibility is that he just went straight home, without seeing PC Long.

At some time between 2:20 and 2:50, he went to Wentworth Dwellings.

Well, if I'm right about that, you can work it out for yourself: he couldn't have lived very far away - and that means somewhere in Spitalfields.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just being questioned and disagreed with hardly qualifies as ‘all hell breaking loose’ is something of an exaggeration. There’s nothing far fetched about a man catching a train. There’s nothing far fetched about a serial killer having a bolt hole. There’s nothing far fetched about a police man missing (or not noticing) a piece of rag in the early hours of the morning.

And…..there’s nothing far fetched about the possibility of the killer living in Spitalfields. We don’t know.

I haven’t raised the question of time.

Someone did.

And there’s no evidence that he didn’t keep organs in a bolt hole or that Long couldn’t simply have missed the apron first time.


Well then, we have a very different approach to evidence!
The best evidence we have is that the apron was not there at 2:20.


But if the killer lived locally, as you believe, he would have had to have got those parts home somehow. I don’t see why you completely reject the suggestion of a bolt hole. A place where he wouldn’t have had to deal with nosey family members or friends.


If my memory serves me correctly, the person who first suggested a bolt-hole explained that what he meant was the home of a friend or relative, not a place of his own.

What I don't understand is why the idea that he had a bolt hole in Spitalfields contradicts my idea that he lived in Spitalfields!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven’t raised the question of time.

Someone did.

Not me.

And there’s no evidence that he didn’t keep organs in a bolt hole or that Long couldn’t simply have missed the apron first time.


Well then, we have a very different approach to evidence!
The best evidence we have is that the apron was not there at 2:20.

Possibly, but it’s just as valid to question both sides.


But if the killer lived locally, as you believe, he would have had to have got those parts home somehow. I don’t see why you completely reject the suggestion of a bolt hole. A place where he wouldn’t have had to deal with nosey family members or friends.


If my memory serves me correctly, the person who first suggested a bolt-hole explained that what he meant was the home of a friend or relative, not a place of his own.

I don’t know about that but I just take a ‘bolt hole’ to mean a room or premises that were available to the killer that were not his everyday dwelling. So it could be a rented room, or a disused building, or a shed, or a workshop, or a store room.

What I don't understand is why the idea that he had a bolt hole in Spitalfields contradicts my idea that he lived in Spitalfields!

It doesn’t.

[Abby Normal]

Hi AB

Your name reminds me of the old Abbey National!

My theory is that he left Mitre Square via Mitre Street (although some here think Church Passage or another exit more likely because he would have wanted to avoid bumping into Watkins).

I think he left at about 1.42 a.m.

He turned left down Aldgate High Street, which meant that Pc Watkins could not be approaching him.

After Aldgate High Street becomes Whitechapel Rd, he turned left down Goulston St.

My guess is that as he was approaching Wentworth Dwellngs, he spotted PC Long, who was due there at around 1:50, and went home to deposit the kidney and lie low.

Another possibility is that he just went straight home, without seeing PC Long.

At some time between 2:20 and 2:50, he went to Wentworth Dwellings.

Well, if I'm right about that, you can work it out for yourself: he couldn't have lived very far away - and that means somewhere in Spitalfields.

Thanks!
I have no problem with that scenario. Ive always thought he either went to his home or bolthole to drop off knife and organs, clean up and pick some chalk and head back out to drop the apron and write the GSG.

Poster Jeff Hamm has done some really interesting geo profile research with maps and hotspots etc showing where the killer was most likely to live. Maybe he can post a few of his maps now, I do beleive one of the hotspots was Spitalfields area.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks!
I have no problem with that scenario. Ive always thought he either went to his home or bolthole to drop off knife and organs, clean up and pick some chalk and head back out to drop the apron and write the GSG.

Poster Jeff Hamm has done some really interesting geo profile research with maps and hotspots etc showing where the killer was most likely to live. Maybe he can post a few of his maps now, I do beleive one of the hotspots was Spitalfields area.

I suppose you know that the late Martin Fido questioned whether the murderer did write the message, and suggested that he just dropped the piece of apron there to get rid of it.

He said there was no proof that the writing wasn't already there.

I think that makes no sense.

It's obvious that the murderer cut off the piece of apron with a purpose in mind, and that purpose was to authenticate the writing on the wall, providing a kind of signature.

That being so, I would have thought he would have been carrying the chalk with him before he went out .

On the other hand, he couldn't have known when he went out that night that he was going to come across an apron to cut.

Maybe he intended to take an article of clothing and didn't know until the time came which article it would be.

In my opinion, he got the idea from a press report that the murderer had left a chalked message at the scene of the Hanbury St murder.

I would certainly be interested in seeing Hamm's research.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It doesn’t.

I didn't mean when I said that the murderer lived in Spitalfields that he was a long-term resident there.

I meant that he was renting a room short-term, and didn't know he would be in London for as long as was.

I don't know whether that would qualify as a bolt-hole.

[DJA]

Pierre ..... please come back ...... all is forgiven

[JeffHamm]

I suppose you know that the late Martin Fido questioned whether the murderer did write the message, and suggested that he just dropped the piece of apron there to get rid of it.

He said there was no proof that the writing wasn't already there.

I think that makes no sense.

It's obvious that the murderer cut off the piece of apron with a purpose in mind, and that purpose was to authenticate the writing on the wall, providing a kind of signature.

That being so, I would have thought he would have been carrying the chalk with him before he went out .

On the other hand, he couldn't have known when he went out that night that he was going to come across an apron to cut.

Maybe he intended to take an article of clothing and didn't know until the time came which article it would be.

In my opinion, he got the idea from a press report that the murderer had left a chalked message at the scene of the Hanbury St murder.

I would certainly be interested in seeing Hamm's research.

Hi PI1,

I've posted some things on various threads, though to be honest I can't remember which ones exactly. However, to clear something up, the "hot spots" in these analyses are not always an offender's residence, rather they tend to indicate locations of interest that the offender likely has day-to-day associations with. Such locations are called "anchor points" in the literature. A residence is often a major anchor point, but there are many cases where the major anchor points are the offender's place of work (i.e. Dennis Rader's crimes are far more tied to his work location, and early in his series when he was unemployed he drove his wife to work, and the first murders occur near that location). Other offender's may have an anchor point that is a club they frequent (i.e. McArthur in Toronto, when I profiled his crimes based upon the last known sighting of his victims, it highlighted the area of the pub he frequented). And so forth.

With respect to the JtR crimes, the hot spot tends to be in the area between Miller's Court and Hanbury Street. Given the nature of that area it could be highlighting a residence, a pub, a place of work, or in the case of an offender who lives outside of the immediate area, roughly where he enters into Spitalfields/Whitechappel (so perhaps someone who lives a bit north of there type thing).

This type of spatial analysis (geo profiling is a term used to make it sound more fancy than it really is) gets less accurate the shorter the crime series, and 5 locations is pretty minimal really.

It is also a bit misrepresented, both in the press (which focus on the very rare cases; either those where it was very accurate or completely off base) or in the movies (where it can do pretty much everything including arranging the celebratory party after the offender's located to the room inside their house, type thing).

Perhaps the best way I can think of to describe what it is doing is this. It is similar to creating a list of people and organizing them in terms of their "social distance" to the victim. Meaning, the closest are spouse/partner/ex-partners, then family members, then close friends, then work colleagues, then associates, like neighbors, fellow members of a club, people who frequent the same pub, etc. Generally, if you search that list in order, you will come across the offender sooner than if you searched all those people in a random order because it is more common for the offender to have a close inter-personal relationship with a victim.

But, that list is an ordered list of "who to look at" not "where to look" (i.e. family members need not live close to the victim, an ex-spouse might live in another town, or next door, etc).

Spatial analysis does the same thing, but in terms of "where to look", not "who to look at". It orders locations as being high to low probabilities as to where to search, but not necessarily what or who to search for. That requires interpretation on the part of the investigator, and requires experience in police work, knowledge of the area, and recognition that high probability doesn't mean a guarantee (i.e. while the spouse might be the highest probability person, it is not guarenteed the spouse is always the offender).

It might sound like it is useless, but that is to go to the other extreme. It's not useless, but it is not a magic bullet and it doesn't over-ride real evidence. By that I mean, if the police have evidence that links Joe Bloggs to the offence, and Joe Bloggs has no connection to the hot spot of the profile, then the profile is set aside (just like if it can be shown that if Joe Bloggs isn't the spouse of the victim we set aside that probability information too but don't claim that "checking the spouse" is useless).

One thing about JtR is that his victims are prostitutes, albeit on a casual basis out of necessity for the most part. That means he has to go where they are, so it is possible that he's coming to the area rather than living in the area. Still, it would suggest that this area was the most familiar to him, so he might live outside it but probably not far outside it (otherwise he would have gone to a different area, as prostitutes could be found in more than just Whitechapel after all).

What I would suggest based upon what I've done would be for the police to check out all the pubs in the high probability zone. Find out who the regulars are, find out who was there on the nights of the murders (I suspect JtR drank before the crimes, even if he didn't get completely pie-eyed), but may have been uncharacteristically absent the next few days (that's a bit of a guess there, and I wouldn't put too much on it). I would also suggest they concentrate their house-to-house in that particular area. I would suggest they set up observations, taking note of men who enter from outlying areas (probably from the north given the street layout) and noting anyone who appears to show up on multiple nights. Also, to keep an eye out for any lone male who appears to be walking a circuit (Commercial - Whitechapel and back via Hanbury type thing; which could just mean for the PC's to note men they see, and if the same fellow appears multiple times in a night, that would be of interest).

The police did concentrate their search around Flower and Dean, which is roughly in the area I'm talking about, so in the end they did focus on what appears to be the high probability area. We know there are reports from pubs in that area of "suspicious men" too. And, well, they didn't catch him, so I'm not sure if they had access to this type of analysis it would have made any difference in terms of outcome.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi PI1,

I've posted some things on various threads, though to be honest I can't remember which ones exactly. However, to clear something up, the "hot spots" in these analyses are not always an offender's residence, rather they tend to indicate locations of interest that the offender likely has day-to-day associations with. Such locations are called "anchor points" in the literature. A residence is often a major anchor point, but there are many cases where the major anchor points are the offender's place of work (i.e. Dennis Rader's crimes are far more tied to his work location, and early in his series when he was unemployed he drove his wife to work, and the first murders occur near that location). Other offender's may have an anchor point that is a club they frequent (i.e. McArthur in Toronto, when I profiled his crimes based upon the last known sighting of his victims, it highlighted the area of the pub he frequented). And so forth.

With respect to the JtR crimes, the hot spot tends to be in the area between Miller's Court and Hanbury Street. Given the nature of that area it could be highlighting a residence, a pub, a place of work, or in the case of an offender who lives outside of the immediate area, roughly where he enters into Spitalfields/Whitechappel (so perhaps someone who lives a bit north of there type thing).

This type of spatial analysis (geo profiling is a term used to make it sound more fancy than it really is) gets less accurate the shorter the crime series, and 5 locations is pretty minimal really.

It is also a bit misrepresented, both in the press (which focus on the very rare cases; either those where it was very accurate or completely off base) or in the movies (where it can do pretty much everything including arranging the celebratory party after the offender's located to the room inside their house, type thing).

Perhaps the best way I can think of to describe what it is doing is this. It is similar to creating a list of people and organizing them in terms of their "social distance" to the victim. Meaning, the closest are spouse/partner/ex-partners, then family members, then close friends, then work colleagues, then associates, like neighbors, fellow members of a club, people who frequent the same pub, etc. Generally, if you search that list in order, you will come across the offender sooner than if you searched all those people in a random order because it is more common for the offender to have a close inter-personal relationship with a victim.

But, that list is an ordered list of "who to look at" not "where to look" (i.e. family members need not live close to the victim, an ex-spouse might live in another town, or next door, etc).

Spatial analysis does the same thing, but in terms of "where to look", not "who to look at". It orders locations as being high to low probabilities as to where to search, but not necessarily what or who to search for. That requires interpretation on the part of the investigator, and requires experience in police work, knowledge of the area, and recognition that high probability doesn't mean a guarantee (i.e. while the spouse might be the highest probability person, it is not guarenteed the spouse is always the offender).

It might sound like it is useless, but that is to go to the other extreme. It's not useless, but it is not a magic bullet and it doesn't over-ride real evidence. By that I mean, if the police have evidence that links Joe Bloggs to the offence, and Joe Bloggs has no connection to the hot spot of the profile, then the profile is set aside (just like if it can be shown that if Joe Bloggs isn't the spouse of the victim we set aside that probability information too but don't claim that "checking the spouse" is useless).

One thing about JtR is that his victims are prostitutes, albeit on a casual basis out of necessity for the most part. That means he has to go where they are, so it is possible that he's coming to the area rather than living in the area. Still, it would suggest that this area was the most familiar to him, so he might live outside it but probably not far outside it (otherwise he would have gone to a different area, as prostitutes could be found in more than just Whitechapel after all).

What I would suggest based upon what I've done would be for the police to check out all the pubs in the high probability zone. Find out who the regulars are, find out who was there on the nights of the murders (I suspect JtR drank before the crimes, even if he didn't get completely pie-eyed), but may have been uncharacteristically absent the next few days (that's a bit of a guess there, and I wouldn't put too much on it). I would also suggest they concentrate their house-to-house in that particular area. I would suggest they set up observations, taking note of men who enter from outlying areas (probably from the north given the street layout) and noting anyone who appears to show up on multiple nights. Also, to keep an eye out for any lone male who appears to be walking a circuit (Commercial - Whitechapel and back via Hanbury type thing; which could just mean for the PC's to note men they see, and if the same fellow appears multiple times in a night, that would be of interest).

The police did concentrate their search around Flower and Dean, which is roughly in the area I'm talking about, so in the end they did focus on what appears to be the high probability area. We know there are reports from pubs in that area of "suspicious men" too. And, well, they didn't catch him, so I'm not sure if they had access to this type of analysis it would have made any difference in terms of outcome.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
I know you have done some sterling work on this topic, but from a practical and evidential perspective geo profiling is about as much use in a murder investigation as a chocolate teapot, especially in this case, the killer could have been a resident in another part of London and came to Whitechapel to kill and then left after he killed, he could have been a seaman who was able to kill on the times his ship was docked in either of the docks closet to Whitechapel, or any other form of itinerant traveller.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

OK,what have you done with the real Trevor!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The police did concentrate their search around Flower and Dean, which is roughly in the area I'm talking about, so in the end they did focus on what appears to be the high probability area. We know there are reports from pubs in that area of "suspicious men" too. And, well, they didn't catch him ...

- Jeff

Hi Jeff


I don't know whether you saw it, but a couple of days ago, when I was promoting my theory that the murderer lived in Spitalfields during the period in which the murders took place, I mentioned the fact that a Canadian researcher calculated that the murderer lived in Flower and Dean Street, and that I hadn't specified the street (which is probably just as well since the reaction from some members was explosive enough).

I would be interested to know your source(s) for the police concentrating on that area.

Here is the one I am referring to:

Jack the Ripper 'lived on Flower and Dean Street, and may have died in a mental asylum': Expert uses algorithm to reveal details about London’s notorious killer

• A former Canadian police officer who pioneered the use of geographical profiling thinks the Jack the Ripper lived on Flower and Dean Street

In 1888, detectives conducted door-to-door inquiries along Flower and Dean Street in the wake of the five murders, but came up with nothing and turned their attention to other areas.


Dr Rossmo, speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival yesterday, said that each of the five victims had lived in doss houses within 200 yards (183 metres) of the road and had each frequented the Ten Bells Pub at Spitalfields Market, which was close by.


He found that Flower and Dean Street is likely to have been his home, and at the very least would have been a frequent haunt.


He said police at the time and ‘Ripperologists’ since had wrongly built their investigations around their suspects, rather than strictly following the evidence.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ler-lived.html

Perhaps you have seen the article before.

If you are familiar with my now-notorious 'overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields' theory, then you will know it is based on the following facts and logical deductions:

Two of the murders took place in Spitalfields

Following the double event, he went north-east to Goulston Street in Spitalfields

If Pc Long's testimony is to be believed, he did not deposit the apron piece till 3/4 of an hour later than necessary, suggesting strongly that he went home in the meantime

According to earwitness and medical evidence, he left Miller's Court at 5.45 a.m., the latest he left the scene of any murder.
That suggests he lived nearby.

Off the top of my head, if the murderer was living in Flower and Dean Street, he would be within very easy distance of Hanbury Street, Dorset Street, and Goulston Street, and if you formed a triangle from them, F & D should be inside it.

The eyewitness testimony suggests that Kelly hadn't gone far to find customers on the night of her murder.
The last sighting of Annie Chapman has her walking from Dorset Street roughly in the direction of Hanbury Street.

Both these facts suggest that the murderer was wandering the streets of that area on both nights and met Kelly in or off Dorset Street (I recall one witness specifically mentioning her saying she was going to look for a customer in a particular street, perhaps Commercial Street, but need to check) and met Chapman in Hanbury Street.

(Since Nichols would hardly have gone down Buck's Row on her own, and was last seen alive walking in its rough direction from Whitechapel Road, she must have met the murderer in Whitechapel Road.)

Only a person living in Spitalfields, without work during the period of the murders, fits the bill in my opinion.

He is wandering the streets of Spitalfields and bumps into Chapman and Kelly because he wanders those streets so often that eventually he is GOING TO bump into them.

That makes a lot more sense than someone bumping into them on his way to work from Bethnal Green or on his day off from playing cricket in Dorset.

And it doesn't fit Kosminski, who did not live in Spitalfields and was not known to associate with prostitutes.

By the way, since it has been deduced by some members that Kosminski owned a dog and spoke some English - both from a newspaper report - it can also be deduced from the same source that he was religious and religious Jews certainly did not associate with prostitutes, a fact conveniently overlooked.

The only named suspect I can think of who may have lived in Spitalfields is Barnett, but he doesn't fit the profile of a customer Kelly brought back with her in the middle of the night.

Kelly was reportedly seen a lot that night, but no-one mentioned Barnett.


Looking forward to seeing your reply.

PI 1

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
I know you have done some sterling work on this topic, but from a practical and evidential perspective geo profiling is about as much use in a murder investigation as a chocolate teapot, especially in this case, the killer could have been a resident in another part of London and came to Whitechapel to kill and then left after he killed, he could have been a seaman who was able to kill on the times his ship was docked in either of the docks closet to Whitechapel, or any other form of itinerant traveller.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

ha ha! Honestly, I do appreciate that. I am an academic, not an applied, researcher. I do recognize the limitations of the stuff I do, and while it would be nice to think that it helps in the real world, maybe to the front line people it doesn't help? I do not, for the record, think I've solved anything, or Know more, than anyone. I just have a view, that I can (yes I can, and will) defend. But defensible and "true", well, they're not the same thing are they?

- Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

Since Nichols would hardly have gone down Buck's Row on her own, and was last seen alive walking in its rough direction from Whitechapel Road, she must have met the murderer in Whitechapel Road.

Hey! Maybe the murderer lived on Whitechapel Road?

[Elamarna]

Hey! Maybe the murderer lived on Whitechapel Road?

Maybe, not my choice, but certainly can't be ruled out.
Somewhere around the numbers in 250s maybe?



Steve