our killer been local

[Ben]

Therefore, in order to believe he missed the apron you have to believe he was remiss in his duties - no evidence of that.

I strongly suggest you read Monty's posts above, Jon.

He is clearly opposed to the idea that Long was "remiss in his duties", but still believes - on the basis of various factors, most notably a knowledge of how the police in those days operated - that Long missed the apron first time around, and I agree. I'm not wedded to the idea, and I accept I may be wrong, but what you need to stop doing, if you'd be so kind, is pretending that anyone who subscribes to this view must be espousing a fringe theory, and one shared only by a minority.

You appear also to have fallen for the fallacy that if someone is emphatic about something, they can't possibly be wrong. On that shaky basis, you rule out the possibility that Long may have missed the apron. According to the same logic, Anderson's very emphatic statement that it was a "definitely ascertained fact" that the ripper was a Polish jew means we can all go home and consider the case closed.

Interesting approach.

[Ben]

I agree that things point to the likelihood of a local killer - but not from the Victoria Home

That's because you believe that "things point" to a specific individual who didn't happen to live at the Victoria Home, Lech.

I'm afraid you continue to misunderstand the issue of late entry into the building. These "special passes" were metal bed tickets (daily or weekly), which lodgers had to show to the night doormen as proof or prior purchase. 12:30am was the last opportunity lodgers had to pay for a ticket there and then.

Jack London's account doesn't need to override other accounts of the Home, since there is no contradiction. If there is a difference, he was writing as a dosser himself and not a journalist who never stayed there in his life.

Only a small percentage of 'blue collar' workers stayed in lodging houses.

Not true of the area we're interested in, and bear in mind that "lodging house" is an encompassing term.

Regards,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

What does not follow is that he must have been local. That he would reasonably have been, though, easily follows. The East End was a labyrinth that was not easy to manouvre, and the killings all took place in a smallish area and at times when people who had no connection to the area or reason to be there would stand a very high risk of being spotted and reported. If the man we´re looking at was not living locally, then he would at least know the area in which he operated well. That IS a fair bet, as far as I´m concerned.

The best,
Fisherman

If you look at the Eddowes murder, the police run around looking for other police, call doctors and do a limited search of the square. Now, if Jack has walked out of the square then he is not going to be found in that search. The police then conduct a search starting at around 2.05am. That's at least 20 minutes after Jack left the square. By that time he has been able to walk a mile and providing he keeps walking briskly until he reaches his destination he will have maintained that distance. How on earth are they going to catch up with him? Jack didn't need to utilise the 'labyrinth'; he simply needed to get up and walk away because by the time he was being hunted he was well clear.

A man with no connection to the area would not have been reported at all. For what reason? I'm not sure how it works in Scandinavia but here we don't report strangers to the police for the crime of being a stranger.

[Monty]

I'm merely expressing personal opinion on Long,

I'm not arguing what happened, and I wish to stress I cannot counter Jons opinion on Long with certainty, however its important to point out that Longs testimony gives us an issue regarding times. That is evidence. Not damning I add.

The reference of whistle usage is in the Met constables handbook Ben. I'm at the football now but shall see if I can find it when I get back.

Monty

[Wickerman]

I strongly suggest you read Monty's posts above, Jon.

He is clearly opposed to the idea that Long was "remiss in his duties", but still believes - on the basis of various factors, most notably a knowledge of how the police in those days operated - that Long missed the apron first time around, and I agree. I'm not wedded to the idea, and I accept I may be wrong, but what you need to stop doing, if you'd be so kind, is pretending that anyone who subscribes to this view must be espousing a fringe theory, and one shared only by a minority.

You appear also to have fallen for the fallacy that if someone is emphatic about something, they can't possibly be wrong. On that shaky basis, you rule out the possibility that Long may have missed the apron. According to the same logic, Anderson's very emphatic statement that it was a "definitely ascertained fact" that the ripper was a Polish jew means we can all go home and consider the case closed.

Interesting approach.

The above was unnecessary if you had just agreed with my parting line:

"While anyone may have a preference to 'believe' that PC Long might have missed it, we certainly have no grounds to do so. And that is the point."

[Fisherman]

If you look at the Eddowes murder, the police run around looking for other police, call doctors and do a limited search of the square. Now, if Jack has walked out of the square then he is not going to be found in that search. The police then conduct a search starting at around 2.05am. That's at least 20 minutes after Jack left the square. By that time he has been able to walk a mile and providing he keeps walking briskly until he reaches his destination he will have maintained that distance. How on earth are they going to catch up with him? Jack didn't need to utilise the 'labyrinth'; he simply needed to get up and walk away because by the time he was being hunted he was well clear.

A man with no connection to the area would not have been reported at all. For what reason? I'm not sure how it works in Scandinavia but here we don't report strangers to the police for the crime of being a stranger.

In Scandinavia, we have this uncanny gift of telling when we don´t recognize people. That way, we are able to report such things. It runs along the lines of:

-Did you see anyone who seemed out of the picture?
-No, the people I saw were all familiar to me.

alternatively:

-Did you see anyone who seemed out of the picture?
-Yes, there was this man I had never seen before.

... but that´s just us Scandinavians, of course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

... Jack didn't need to utilise the 'labyrinth'; he simply needed to get up and walk away because by the time he was being hunted he was well clear.

I think you are quite correct here, in fact to head towards the main streets was likely the smartest move. In attempting to navigate the warren of backstreets he could also lend himself to be a victim of crime.

[Fisherman]

I think you are quite correct here, in fact to head towards the main streets was likely the smartest move. In attempting to navigate the warren of backstreets he could also lend himself to be a victim of crime.

On a general level this may be true - but there is always the blood to factor in. If he had bloodied hands/cuffs etc, it would be a lot more perilous to use the main thoroughfares, I think. And if he carried innards on his person, I would not be surprised if he reasoned that the fewer people he met, the better.

In the end, this all is very much a question of personal interpretations, of course!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I agree with Monty that Long was not remiss in his duties by not knocking on doors and searching the building on his own. I would be quite surprised if an experienced constable had abandoned his evidence, failed to report his findings or flag another constable, in favor of 'playing the hero' and searching the building. Had Jack been in there (which I don't believe he was, but Long would have had reason to suspect he was), he would have been prepared for Long and made short work of him before escaping.

As for the apron, I don't see how Monty's knowledge of police procedure could lead him to the conclusion that an individual PC had either lied about the apron or failed to notice it. This may have happened, but Long said it didn't. I'm not convinced he wasn't lying either.

I wouldn't go so far as Wick as to say that Monty and those who agree with him are fudging the evidence to support a theory, but I do think that in some cases their respective theory(ies) inform their conclusions. How can they not?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't go so far as Wick as to say that Monty and those who agree with him are fudging the evidence to support a theory, but I do think that in some cases their respective theory(ies) inform their conclusions. How can they not?

I wouldn't say that either Tom.
(are you sure you've been following this thread?)

[Ginger]

In attempting to navigate the warren of backstreets he could also lend himself to be a victim of crime.

I would rather imagine that Jack, not entirely without reason, felt himself to be more dangerous and ruthless than anyone he was likely to encouter.

[Ben]

On a general level this may be true - but there is always the blood to factor in. If he had bloodied hands/cuffs etc, it would be a lot more perilous to use the main thoroughfares, I think. And if he carried innards on his person, I would not be surprised if he reasoned that the fewer people he met, the better.

I think you're absolutely right, Fisherman.

In addition, if he headed straight for Whitechapel High Street, it would have meant heading up the whole length of Goulston Street and mysteriously missing PC Long. Seems unlikely to me, which is why I'd be putting my money on Stoney Lane, Gravel Street etc as a more probable escape route (which would reasonably have qualified as a "labyrinth" of back alleyways in those days).

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

I wouldn't say that either Tom.
(are you sure you've been following this thread?)

I'm sure I'm doing a poor job of following the thread and I apologize if I misrepresented you. In any event, I have gone as far as to suggest that myself, but I don't think it's actually true. There are just certain parts of the case that pose a problem for any theorist with a minimalist view, and I think at times they take too easy a way out in dismissing certain evidence as irrelevant. The graffiti and apron are only one example of this. As for me personally, I'm quick to question everything, but very slow to dismiss something. I think we need good reason to do so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Hi all,

I agree with Monty that Long was not remiss in his duties by not knocking on doors and searching the building on his own. I would be quite surprised if an experienced constable had abandoned his evidence, failed to report his findings or flag another constable, in favor of 'playing the hero' and searching the building. Had Jack been in there (which I don't believe he was, but Long would have had reason to suspect he was), he would have been prepared for Long and made short work of him before escaping.

As for the apron, I don't see how Monty's knowledge of police procedure could lead him to the conclusion that an individual PC had either lied about the apron or failed to notice it. This may have happened, but Long said it didn't. I'm not convinced he wasn't lying either.

I wouldn't go so far as Wick as to say that Monty and those who agree with him are fudging the evidence to support a theory, but I do think that in some cases their respective theory(ies) inform their conclusions. How can they not?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I have no theory to fudge, it makes no difference to me when the apron was found. Likewise no conclusion to defend.

Something suspect theorists find hard to comprehend but there you go.

Also, I didn't mention police procedure in relation to the timing of Long locating the apron, that was inference to the claim Long acted oddly.

Do read before posting Thomas.

Monty

[Wickerman]

I would rather imagine that Jack, not entirely without reason, felt himself to be more dangerous and ruthless than anyone he was likely to encouter.

I'm sure he might, when he was in control.
We don't know how he would react when he is being attacked, only when he was doing the attacking. Do you recall Sutcliffe?, one detective described him as more like an effeminate wimp.

I see quite a bit in common between the Yorkshire Ripper and 'Jack'.