our killer been local

[Lechmere]

Ben
I agree that things point to the likelihood of a local killer - but not from the Victoria Home.
All the accounts say that it shut soon after midnight and they did not take shift workers and you had to get a special pass to gain access after this. You cannot wish this away.
No one knows where Jack London stayed - his account of the facilities and conditions in the lodging house he used cannot override accounts nearer the time that were most certainly relating to the Victoria Home.

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

[Fisherman]

What's a pretty fair bet?! Is there such a thing? I assume you mean good odds.

It really doesn't follow that he probably 'was local'.

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

[Sally]

The killer doesn't have to have been local. But he does have to have had a close familiarity with the immediate locale.

There are obviously variations on how he aquired that familiarity; but his having been a local man - by which I mean having lived in the immediate locale for a sufficient time to have acquired that familiarity - is the stronger probability in my view.

I don't think he has to have originated from Whitechapel necessarily - although of course he may have done; but he probably did live there, either at some time in the past; or more likely, when the murders were being committed.

I think a killer without a close familiarity with the streets of Whitechapel is less tenable.

[Hunter]

Huh?...

[harry]

I'm not arguing for anything.I have a strong opinion that JTR was more likely to be resident in the murder locale, than to be a stranger.In doing so,I use time instead of distance,and place a maximum of fifteen minutes as a guide.Of course it's possible that I am wrong,as it is possible that many opinions in 1888 were wrong,and opinions of others today are wrong.Not to say one shouldn't have opinions or suggest possibilities.Both are preferable to saying there is no answer.

[Monty]

If you're capable of logical inference, you'll note from the above that the coroner considered it odd that the PC ventured only into the staircase and not "the house itself", despite the implications of what he discovered in the staircase. As your extract further demonstrates, a juror explicitly queried his failure to investigate "the house itself". Obviously both coroner and juror were anxious to avoid any blatant criticism of the police, but it shouldn't take a deductive genius to figure out that they were perplexed by Long's behaviour

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.

And there seems some confusion between 'inquiry' and 'enquiry'.

Monty

[Ben]

[Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.
[Coroner] Did you not make inquiries in the house itself? - No.

If you're capable of logical inference, you'll note from the above that the coroner considered it odd that the PC ventured only into the staircase and not "the house itself", despite the implications of what he discovered in the staircase. As your extract further demonstrates, a juror explicitly queried his failure to investigate "the house itself". Obviously both coroner and juror were anxious to avoid any blatant criticism of the police, but it shouldn't take a deductive genius to figure out that they were perplexed by Long's behaviour.

You didn't answer my earlier question, where did Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy, all live, come on Ben tell me - communal living so they can blend in with the masses?

You compare apples to oranges, and in so doing reveal a woeful lack of understanding about the living conditions available to average working class men and women in Victorian London. Had Dahmer or Bundy been living in 1888 London, circumstances may well have forced them into a lodging house situation. On the flipside, it could be argued persuasively that if Jack lived alone, he would have dispatched and disposed of his victims there (like Dacy, Dahmer etc), rather than on the streets.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
I didn't write covered in blood,but do you contend there would not be sufficient to be noticeable, especially to a person with a bulls eye lantern.
Your comment on using the dark places and allyways only reinforce the argument of a local familiar with those dark places and allyways,and anyone trying to evade would only draw more attention.I never mentioned lodging house s in my last post,but again do you contend that there would not,or could not be means of entry other than the one entrance,and that all means of entrance would be covered?

Harry.
I do notice in your earlier post you appear to argue for a local man - fewer streets to travel?
I don't doubt he was a local, but I don't think he had to be.
If he carried bloodstains on his hands or sleeves, it would be a mistake to enter a lodging-house in that condition. This killer would need a room away from prying eyes.

[Wickerman]

I'm not making things up at all, Jon. Long's failure to investigate the dwelling was queried at the inquest. This is a fact, ......

Oh brother!

First exchange:
[Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.
[Coroner] Did you not make inquiries in the house itself? - No.

Second exchange:
[Coroner] What did you do when you found the piece of apron? - I at once searched the staircases leading to the buildings.
[Coroner] Did you make inquiry in any of the tenements of the buildings? - No.

Third exchange:
A Juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling? - I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.
The Juror: I do not wish to say anything to reflect upon you, because I consider that altogether the evidence of the police redounds to their credit; but it does seem strange that this clue was not followed up.
Witness: I thought the best thing to do was to proceed to the station and report to the inspector on duty.
The Juror: I am sure you did what you deemed best.
Mr. Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer? - Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.

Notice!
"...I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was."

No censure on Long by anyone, no-one, not even the Coroner asked him "why not?"
Or do you want to claim you have another version that tells a different story?

No censure, and Long thought the Inspector should handle the situation - and rightly so.
There were 12 units to visit, this is a job for a team not a beat constable.
Ben...ask someone who knows and try to refrain from guessing.

Had the equivalent of a "modern day manual worker" lived in 1888 London, it's more than possible that he would have lived in a lodging house.

Is this another private consensus of yours, or just your perception?

You didn't answer my earlier question, where did Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy, all live, come on Ben tell me - communal living so they can blend in with the masses?
Or did they live at home?

Give it some thought Ben, and get back to me.

[Ben]

Lechmere,

I haven’t read about any common rooms there – although there was a reading room that had some papers, games and books in it that had been donated

There is also Jack London's experience of the Victoria Home, as related in The People of the Abyss:

"On my return I paid fivepence for a “cabin,” took my receipt for the same in the form of a huge brass check, and went upstairs to the smoking-room. Here, a couple of small billiard tables and several checkerboards were being used by young working-men, who waited in relays for their turn at the games, while many men were sitting around, smoking, reading, and mending their clothes."

Seems as though there was indeed a "common room" that could be termed as such, and which did offer the availability of games that would have benefitted from the use of chalk to keep score.

Before you're tempted, please don't waste time trying to argue that London was referring to a different lodging house. We've done all that nonsense before on a more appropriate thread, but it is quite clear from the description that it was the Victoria Home being referred to. At the very least, it demonstrates that the larger lodging houses in the area DID have common rooms and games rooms, and this was the point being aggressively and ignorantly challenged here.

I very much doubt it as the place went under lock down at about 12.30.
The Victoria Home had strict rules about late night entry – Hutchinson could not have gone in at that hour without a special pass, and if he had gone back out and back in again he would have been noticed and cuffed.
Every account that we have mentions the late night curfew at the Victoria Home as it was unusual.

No.

No.

No, Lechmere.

Just no.

Don't even countenance starting all that again.

The Victoria Home closed its doors at 12:30am to any lodger who had not paid for a nightly or weekly ticket in advance. If a lodger WAS in possession of a ticket - not a piece of paper with a specific individual's name on it, but a generic lump of metal - he could flash it at the deputy and gain access at any time of the night. That much is made abundantly clear by the evidence.

But straight back on topic we go, and I note your agreement with me about the likelihood of the killer being a local, so let's focus on that issue hereafter, if we could.

P.S. Thank you, it was indeed Radstock rather than Peabody.

[Ben]

I'm not making things up at all, Jon. Long's failure to investigate the dwelling was queried at the inquest. This is a fact, and it just isn't done to shoot the messenger for drawing attention to facts. If you think there's nothing remotely problematic about failing to investigate the obvious possibility that the killer was inside the building, I guess there's little I can do to convince you otherwise.

The 19th century dosser is not the equivalent of our modern-day manual worker. They are classes apart.

Obviously not true. The difference is that the rich-poor and class divide was greater in 1888, and poverty existed on a larger scale in those days. Had the equivalent of a "modern day manual worker" lived in 1888 London, it's more than possible that he would have lived in a lodging house.

Recall how you so confidently dismiss the medical evidence & conclusions debated by Prosector?

If you've been involved in ripper research for any length of time, you would know that a great many medical experts have argued for and against the killer having medical knowledge, and the preponderance of medical evidence - then and now - is that he didn't. So I'm afraid if you're clinging to "Prosector" to lend gravitas to your educated, upper-class, well-dressed ripper theory, you won't find many adherents. But I'm afraid this isn't the thread to dredge up the "anatomical knowledge" issue again.

So, why do you assume he was headed home, and on what grounds?

Overwhelming common sense and the realisation that it's so obviously the best explanation, of course. You think it likely that Jack was headed for other prostitutes to kill on the streets after Chapman and Nichols?

[harry]

Jon,
I didn't write covered in blood,but do you contend there would not be sufficient to be noticeable, especially to a person with a bulls eye lantern.
Your comment on using the dark places and allyways only reinforce the argument of a local familiar with those dark places and allyways,and anyone trying to evade would only draw more attention.I never mentioned lodging house s in my last post,but again do you contend that there would not,or could not be means of entry other than the one entrance,and that all means of entrance would be covered?

[Lechmere]

Ben
I’ve never characterised the Victoria Home as being a cut below a hotel – where do you get these ideas from?
It was a Radstock Home – not Peabody.
I haven’t read about any common rooms there – although there was a reading room that had some papers, games and books in it that had been donated. It is not specified what the games are but I get the impression that they would be small items such as chess sets.
Would this room have been accessible late at night? I very much doubt it as the place went under lock down at about 12.30.
The Victoria Home had strict rules about late night entry – Hutchinson could not have gone in at that hour without a special pass, and if he had gone back out and back in again he would have been noticed and cuffed.
Every account that we have mentions the late night curfew at the Victoria Home as it was unusual.

[Wickerman]

And yet he did not investigate the Wentworth Model Dwellings himself, for which he received censure at the inquest.

Ben, don't make things up!
PC Long did not receive censure, the Coroner asked him a reasonable question, and did not query his actions. A juror, who clearly was not informed as to the duties of the constable was the only one who queried Long's actions.
There was no censure, no reprimand, no castigation.

His critics might have argued, with considerable justification considering the location of the apron and chalked message, that it would have been better to do so rather than leaving someone on "watch".

Say's who? What critics?

As such, we can dispense with the idea that everyone was monitoring everyone else's business at 3.00am in the morning. ....

As usual Ben, you can dismiss anything that speaks against your perception.

The vast majority of prostitute killers come from working class backgrounds and work in menial, blue-collar occupations.

And where do they live Ben?
The 19th century dosser is not the equivalent of our modern-day manual worker. They are classes apart.

Controversial, minoroty-endorsed, outdated, and almost certainly wrong, but fair enough.

There you go again with this private poll of yours....

What troubles me is that you allow this preference to pepper your entire thinking of the case.

Not that you are the slightest bit interested but, my conclusion was arrived at the other way around.
Recall how you so confidently dismiss the medical evidence & conclusions debated by Prosector?
Clearly Ben, you are so attached to your preconceptions that you refuse to listen to learned opinion.

Are you serious?

About Spicer? - no, but about where the killer was headed, and why? - absolutely.
Neither you nor I have any clue where he was headed, or why. So, why do you assume he was headed home, and on what grounds?

[Graham]

Psst Graham.
This Games Room was Ben's conjecture.
I think you are essentially in agreement with Lechmere.

Psst Jon,

I think that this Forum has tonight reached a new low in banality and pointlessness. And that, I might add, is saying something.

Graham