our killer been local

[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.

[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?)

[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

[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

[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]

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 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

[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."

[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

[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 weīre 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 Iīm 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.

[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

[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]

Can't disagree with any of that, Monty, and the information on correct whistle usage by the policemen on beat is appreciated

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ok Ben, is that settled?

Now, with regard to the question of whether PC Long could have missed the apron earlier?

PC Long was experienced enough to know what the procedure was. To check dark corners, doorways, points of public access, that windows & doors are secure, etc.
Therefore, in order to believe he missed the apron you have to believe he was remiss in his duties - no evidence of that.

Then we might ask whether PC Long was not really sure if it was there, just preferred not to admit it, or had not noticed it?

Well here we have a variety of examples from the Inquest where PC Long had no reservations about admitting to being unsure:
- It may have been.
- It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
- I could not form an opinion.
- I cannot say.

So as we can see, when PC Long was unsure about a detail he had no reservations about giving an honest answer to the question.

So now we read:
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.

It was not!
Brief, concise, and to the point.

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.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

What are your thoughts on the issue of whether or not Long missed the apron first time around? This rather distracting tangent only occurred because it was claimed to be such a controversial and "unconvincing" idea that Long may have missed it, and when I pointed out that opinion is essentially divided on the issue, with neither interpretation receiving more mainstream acceptance than the other (I'm pretty much on the fence myself), it led to bizarre accusations that I was "assassinating" (so dramatic!) Long's character.

I was also pointing out the fact that his failure to investigate the building was queried at the inquest.

Whether that's because the juror was ignorant of "procedure" is a separate issue, although I don't see too much evidence that Long was adhering to procedure. Surely he'd have said so, if that were the case, rather than defending himself on the grounds that he did what he thought best The station was a fair walk away, and anyone who did require first aid could potentially have succumbed in the time it took to go to the police station, find someone in authority, ask him what to do, and return.

Would it have been against procedure to blow a whistle and attract the attention of other policemen that way?

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I think Long missed it first time around. Like you I cannot prove it however the configuration of the dwellings, Goulston Street, a little knowledge on how the police of the time operated, etc, has lead me to that conclusion, however.....

.....Long gave testimony at inquest that he saw nothing there at 2.20am. And that has to be taken into consideration.

I take your point regarding what was laid at inquest, the questioning of his actions. However he adhered to procedure by conducting an immediate search for a body then notifying his superiors. Yes, anyone could have succumbed to their injuries. My point is that he raised alarm exactly the way he should have done.

The use of whistles was strictly forbidden unless it was an emergency, this because it was feared a crowd would gather and hinder the police in their duty. You may note Neils actions in Bucks Row, he used his Bulls eye lamp to signal Thain rather than blow his whistle. Now what is deemed an emergency is down to the individual Bobby, with the usual rule of thumb being life or death situations, immediate danger or if the felon is suspected to be nearby.

So yeah, Long would have had to justify his use of the whistle.

Cheers
Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

What are your thoughts on the issue of whether or not Long missed the apron first time around? This rather distracting tangent only occurred because it was claimed to be such a controversial and "unconvincing" idea that Long may have missed it, and when I pointed out that opinion is essentially divided on the issue, with neither interpretation receiving more mainstream acceptance than the other (I'm pretty much on the fence myself), it led to bizarre accusations that I was "assassinating" (so dramatic!) Long's character.

I was also pointing out the fact that his failure to investigate the building was queried at the inquest.

Whether that's because the juror was ignorant of "procedure" is a separate issue, although I don't see too much evidence that Long was adhering to procedure. Surely he'd have said so, if that were the case, rather than defending himself on the grounds that he did what he thought best The station was a fair walk away, and anyone who did require first aid could potentially have succumbed in the time it took to go to the police station, find someone in authority, ask him what to do, and return.

Would it have been against procedure to blow a whistle and attract the attention of other policemen that way?

All the best,
Ben