our killer been local

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would submit that we do not know this. The absence of the apron as Long passed the doorway in Goulston Street seemingly implies that the killer stuck around in the neighbourhood, and we know very little about his psyche, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

That staple diet of last resorts eh: "we don't know Jack's mindset". Ha'way Fisherman, when the shoe's on the other foot you're happy enough to understand Jack's mindset where Cross/Lechmere is involved.

Except, we're not sure whether or not the apron was there.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mind if I yell "Bingo", Tom?

Fisherman

I would think this would be self-evident. What else is the point of accumulating facts and data if we're not up to the challenge of making sense of it all and putting the pieces together? I don't understand why 'theorist' carries with it such a negative connotation. Having said that, i do believe a theory must have a foundation in fact and should only exist in order to make sense of those facts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

P.S. All Ripperologists are theorists, Monty. All of us. Or else we're not Ripperologists.

Mind if I yell "Bingo", Tom?

Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

That does not change that people would have been asked to report if they had seen somebody unknown to them.

The best,
Fisherman

And how on earth does this mean that the killer was probably local?!

The police turn up the next day and knock on doors: "did you see a stranger in the vicinity?". It couldn't be more inconsequential to whether or not the man was local or otherwise.

Do you think doors were knocked and the denizens of these homes said: "recall everything, no strangers in sight".?

If anything, your theory is contradicted by the fact that the police turned up the grand sum of nothing when they knocked local doors. Now, I'm of the belief that Jack was not about to come to the door swinging organs round his head , but locals were checked out and nothing doing.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

Slip on a pair of gloves to take care of that problem.

Well, Jon, we canīt tell where blood ended up, can we? He could well be speckled with it in his face, for all we know - the onslaughts were hefty. So much as gloves would help, we canīt tell how omnipotent they were.

Given what appears to be daring exploits, doing what he does and where he does it, carrying his victims organs on his person is all part of the personality, the thrill, the challenge.

Or the I-could-not-care-less-attitude. Or a lack of insight that people disliked what he did. Or madness. Or ...

I am much on your side - I too feel that he may have liked "playing games", outwitting the police ... But alas, I donīt know for certain that this was so.

Which is the prime cause of most disagreements here

How boring would life be if we all agreed - somehow I can't see us ever being bored.

I can Nah, just kiddinī!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Of course it boils down to opinions, but some opinions are built upon better foundations than others.

You talk as if he had to negotiate the streets full of teeming policemen stopping and searching from the moment Jack got up and left. He didn't. By the time they were stopping and searching people Jack was long gone. He could have had blood all over his hands and a pocket with a recently acquired head in it and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference because by the time the police were stopping people he was at least a mile away and well away from the clutches of the police.

I would submit that we do not know this. The absence of the apron as Long passed the doorway in Goulston Street seemingly implies that the killer stuck around in the neighbourhood, and we know very little about his psyche, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, if that's an attempt at sarcasm then give it up for a bad job, mate, as that's the weakest attempt at humour since Cardinal Wolsey got his dick out at Hampton Court and pretended to be a door.

You're not as clever as you think you are, pal, because in England we're private people who do not interfere with strangers going about their business; except of course lunatics, drunks and out-and-out attention seekers who finger blokes in the pub for being Jack The Ripper, and it's fair to say those types are more of an hinderance than a help.

That does not change that people would have been asked to report if they had seen somebody unknown to them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Really? Because I was responding to this post from you:

'The coroner thought it odd?

No. The coroner was merely establishing the facts, not passing judgement.

The head juror was questioning Long, this due to the formers ignorance of procedure.

Longs behaviour is neither perplexing nor questionable. He saw a bloodied piece of apron, considered a victim may be in the building and searched for that victim in the accessible areas of the dwellings. This to render First Aid if he could or to send for a medic.

Not finding a victim, but unsure of the building, he called PC Bettles to monitor the dwellings whilst he reported his find at the station, realising the possibility that the victim may still be in the building, but also realising the situation there is not clear. There may be a murder, murderer, siege, what the hell ever else to deal with. So he sought guidance and re-enforcement.

Long had four years service by this time, and had been trained and tested procedure constantly and reading the reports, he made no error in that procedure nor behaved oddly.'

I can't imagine how the word 'procedure' got stuck in my head.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. All Ripperologists are theorists, Monty. All of us. Or else we're not Ripperologists.

[Wickerman]

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.

Slip on a pair of gloves to take care of that problem.

And if he carried innards on his person, I would not be surprised if he reasoned that the fewer people he met, the better.

Given what appears to be daring exploits, doing what he does and where he does it, carrying his victims organs on his person is all part of the personality, the thrill, the challenge.

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

Which is the prime cause of most disagreements here

How boring would life be if we all agreed - somehow I can't see us ever being bored.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Of course it boils down to opinions, but some opinions are built upon better foundations than others.

You talk as if he had to negotiate the streets full of teeming policemen stopping and searching from the moment Jack got up and left. He didn't. By the time they were stopping and searching people Jack was long gone. He could have had blood all over his hands and a pocket with a recently acquired head in it and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference because by the time the police were stopping people he was at least a mile away and well away from the clutches of the police.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In Scandinavia, we have this uncanny gift of telling when we donīt 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 thatīs just us Scandinavians, of course.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman, if that's an attempt at sarcasm then give it up for a bad job, mate, as that's the weakest attempt at humour since Cardinal Wolsey got his dick out at Hampton Court and pretended to be a door.

You're not as clever as you think you are, pal, because in England we're private people who do not interfere with strangers going about their business; except of course lunatics, drunks and out-and-out attention seekers who finger blokes in the pub for being Jack The Ripper, and it's fair to say those types are more of an hinderance than a help.

[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'.

[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

[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

[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