Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pc Long and the piece of rag.

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

  • Pc Long and the piece of rag.

    Hi,
    I'm assuming that when PC Long found the cloth in Goulston Street, he wasn't aware of the murder at Mitre Sq at that point.
    I'm curious on why a piece of rag laying quite away in the door way would raise any suspicion about anything.
    I doubt that any blood or red colour would stand out by a gas lamp in a dark corner, certainly from a slight distance.
    I'm guessing back then, bits of old cloth, rubbish were strewn about every where and so wouldn't be given a second thought.
    I'm also assuming the only reason a policeman would shine a lamp in such a place would be looking for vagrants or similar .

    Regards.

  • #2
    I believe PC Long said at inquest that he was aware of the Mitre Square murder, and had heard rumours of the other.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
      I believe PC Long said at inquest that he was aware of the Mitre Square murder, and had heard rumours of the other.
      After checking, I realised I got my timing wrong when he found the cloth.
      Still I wonder if a bit of rag would stand out.
      If by then he was on the look out, I would have thought he would be more alert for suspicious looking individuals.

      Comment


      • #4
        PC Long found the apron at 2:55am, and insisted he didn't see it the last time he was there, at 2:20am. We can surmise that the killer could have left the apron just after 2:20am at the earliest. That would mean the killer, after having left Mitre Square at about 1:45am or so, went away somewhere for about 35 minutes or so before arriving at Goulston Street. We can also surmise that he was probably in hiding somewhere during those 35 minutes because he probably thought he couldn't afford to be stopped by the police. Perhaps something he had would incriminate him, such as a bloody apron, of course. And perhaps being the loner that he likely was, he wouldn't be able to account for his whereabouts that night.

        Comment


        • #5
          I believe he saw the apron and paid it no mind, or he just missed it.

          Comment


          • #6
            My belief is that something left at the entrance to a building would be quite conspicuous. If the object was inside the building, it would also be unlikely that the wind had blown it there (was it windy at Goulston Street that night?), as opposed to something placed in the middle of a street. Therefore, if I had seen something like that at a building's entrance, I would have been inclined to think that someone had placed it there.

            ---


            Even if PC Long had missed it at 2:20am, it would still have been possible for the killer to put it there because the killer left Mitre Square around 1:45am.

            My belief is that the killer probably put it there shortly before or after 2:20am, about 35 min after he left Mitre Square. That would fit his other activities that night too: he killed Stride at around 1 am, then appeared with Eddowes near Mitre Square at around 1:35am, again a 35-minute break.
            Last edited by YomRippur; 09-13-2016, 08:11 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
              PC Long found the apron at 2:55am, and insisted he didn't see it the last time he was there, at 2:20am. We can surmise that the killer could have left the apron just after 2:20am at the earliest. That would mean the killer, after having left Mitre Square at about 1:45am or so, went away somewhere for about 35 minutes or so before arriving at Goulston Street. We can also surmise that he was probably in hiding somewhere during those 35 minutes because he probably thought he couldn't afford to be stopped by the police. Perhaps something he had would incriminate him, such as a bloody apron, of course. And perhaps being the loner that he likely was, he wouldn't be able to account for his whereabouts that night.
              Hi Yom
              I tend to think that the ripper was pissed off after having been disturbed and seen by a lot of jews that night and went home to drop off his trophies and knife, get cleaned up a bit and grab a piece of chalk before heading back out to blame the jews and spread a little obsfucation.
              it also explains the gap.
              "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

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                PC Long found the apron at 2:55am, and insisted he didn't see it the last time he was there, at 2:20am. We can surmise that the killer could have left the apron just after 2:20am at the earliest. That would mean the killer, after having left Mitre Square at about 1:45am or so, went away somewhere for about 35 minutes or so before arriving at Goulston Street. We can also surmise that he was probably in hiding somewhere during those 35 minutes because he probably thought he couldn't afford to be stopped by the police. Perhaps something he had would incriminate him, such as a bloody apron, of course. And perhaps being the loner that he likely was, he wouldn't be able to account for his whereabouts that night.
                Hi,
                Hanging around somewhere for 35 minutes is a long time to hang about straight after a murder, especially if he always intended to head back through Goulston Street, which using a short cut is about six minutes away.
                Surely he would be putting himself more at risk of being stopped by hanging around close by.
                which of course suggests he may have gone the slightly longer route ( about 12 mins ) through Aldgate , but by doing that he would be walking back in the direction towards where Stride was murdered which I assume would be swarming with police.

                Regards

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                  Hi,
                  Hanging around somewhere for 35 minutes is a long time to hang about straight after a murder, especially if he always intended to head back through Goulston Street, which using a short cut is about six minutes away.
                  Surely he would be putting himself more at risk of being stopped by hanging around close by.
                  which of course suggests he may have gone the slightly longer route ( about 12 mins ) through Aldgate , but by doing that he would be walking back in the direction towards where Stride was murdered which I assume would be swarming with police.

                  Regards
                  Abby,

                  I've posted this before but to me, this makes the most sense, and a solid reason for the difference in the two killings that night. Two murderers working in collusion.

                  Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888

                  TWO MURDERERS. The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.
                  The two brainy men who thus theorized, although they firmly believed they had at last opened the case, were still at a loss in what direction to look for the authors of the fearful crimes. With the utmost patience they sought out the degraded companions of the dead women, and bit by bit they learned all that probably ever will be known of their habits, tastes and mode of life.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                    Abby,

                    I've posted this before but to me, this makes the most sense, and a solid reason for the difference in the two killings that night. Two murderers working in collusion.

                    Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888

                    TWO MURDERERS. The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.
                    The two brainy men who thus theorized, although they firmly believed they had at last opened the case, were still at a loss in what direction to look for the authors of the fearful crimes. With the utmost patience they sought out the degraded companions of the dead women, and bit by bit they learned all that probably ever will be known of their habits, tastes and mode of life.
                    Certainly a different take on it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                      Hi,
                      Hanging around somewhere for 35 minutes is a long time to hang about straight after a murder, especially if he always intended to head back through Goulston Street, which using a short cut is about six minutes away.
                      Surely he would be putting himself more at risk of being stopped by hanging around close by.
                      which of course suggests he may have gone the slightly longer route ( about 12 mins ) through Aldgate , but by doing that he would be walking back in the direction towards where Stride was murdered which I assume would be swarming with police.

                      Regards
                      But it wouldn't have been risky if he had gone to a hiding place, possibly his home. That might have also explained the apparently different clothing seen by Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende. After killing Stride, the killer might have gone home and changed to clean clothing (35 minutes passed), gone back out, killed Eddowes, gone home again and changed (another 35 minutes), grabbed a piece of chalk and gone out to Goulston Street. All these trips he was able to make strengthens the motion that his hiding place/home was probably somewhere in the vicinity of Flower & Dean Street (as already suggested by others).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                        Abby,

                        I've posted this before but to me, this makes the most sense, and a solid reason for the difference in the two killings that night. Two murderers working in collusion.

                        Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888

                        TWO MURDERERS. The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.
                        The two brainy men who thus theorized, although they firmly believed they had at last opened the case, were still at a loss in what direction to look for the authors of the fearful crimes. With the utmost patience they sought out the degraded companions of the dead women, and bit by bit they learned all that probably ever will be known of their habits, tastes and mode of life.
                        The problem with the two-murderer theory is that murders were actually quite rare in Whitechapel at the time; so it was not probable that two women were killed within 35 minutes by different killers with the same kind of throat-cutting in the same neighbordhood. Therefore it was deduced pretty early on that they were probably killed by the same hand, with the first killing seemingly unfinished. Over a century has passed and this still seems to be the most likely and correct deduction.
                        Last edited by YomRippur; 09-13-2016, 02:05 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                          But it wouldn't have been risky if he had gone to a hiding place, possibly his home. That might have also explained the apparently different clothing seen by Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende. After killing Stride, the killer might have gone home and changed to clean clothing (35 minutes passed), gone back out, killed Eddowes, gone home again and changed (another 35 minutes), grabbed a piece of chalk and gone out to Goulston Street. All these trips he was able to make strengthens the motion that his hiding place/home was probably somewhere in the vicinity of Flower & Dean Street (as already suggested by others).
                          Assuming he killed Stride, going home to clean up and then going back out to murder, it seems odd to head back in the direction of his first murder instead of going out in a different direction.
                          If he hadn't of bumped into Eddowes by chance ( assuming he wasn't meeting her ) he was heading even further closer to the Stride murder in search for a victim.

                          Regards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                            Assuming he killed Stride, going home to clean up and then going back out to murder, it seems odd to head back in the direction of his first murder instead of going out in a different direction.
                            If he hadn't of bumped into Eddowes by chance ( assuming he wasn't meeting her ) he was heading even further closer to the Stride murder in search for a victim.

                            Regards
                            The route of Berner Street -> Flower & Dean Street -> Mitre Square was roughly westward, so there wasn't any drastic change of direction. Of course, going eastward from Mitre Square was a drastic 180-degree turn. All this strengthens the notion of where his possible hiding place/home would have been.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
                              The problem with the two-murderer theory is that murders were actually quite rare in Whitechapel at the time; so it was not probable that two women were killed within 35 minutes by different killers with the same kind of throat-cutting in the same neighbordhood. Therefore it was deduced pretty early on that they were probably killed by the same hand, with the first killing seemingly unfinished. Over a century has passed and this still seems to be the most likely and correct deduction.
                              Hi Yom and Thanks,

                              Dr. Phillips felt the two murders were by a different hand. His assistant, Dr. Percy Clark also felt only 3 of the 5 canonicals were by the same hand. Superintendent Arnold felt "Miss Kelly" was by a different hand than the others. There really isn't a 100% agreement by anyone on anything.

                              As far as probability of another killer? There was another killer at the same time frame. The Torso killer. So statistics of another serial killer being unlikely means little, really.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X