our killer been local

[Abby Normal]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps "convinced" is a little strong, you're right, but there seems to be a fair few who consider it the more probable explanation that Long missed it. I hold no firm convictions either way. I just couldn't fathom why Jon felt that an absent apron on first passing by Long meant the killer must have taken an indirect route home.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
Wether long missed it the first time or it wasn't their is of course a minor point, but I would go with it wasn't there.

Hutch was not anticipating being seen and interrupted by so many Jews that night so of course he did not have any chalk on him, to write the GSG. I would say the relative lengthy time for the apron and GSG to appear was due to him going to find something to write with, perhaps get cleaned up a bit and drop off his goodies, before heading to Goulston street.

Of course he repeated this incrimination of Jews with his description of Aman later on.

[Lechmere]

Tom
You don't think the police regularly checked the local Lodging Houses after each murder?

So you are not with Wick when he quoted this...

"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Of course the Star were basing their view on the very many reports that preceded that, in many papers, which mentioned the police's targeting of Lodging Houses.
Or are you saying this wasn't the case?

[Tom_Wescott]

Two guys? Interesting more info please .

My book on the full Ripper case will be out in a couple years and this'll be in it along with tons of other stuff. However, in the next couple of months I'll have a smaller book out on the Smith and Tabram cases.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

No. And I don't know how legit the kidney was, but it was sent by two guys who did not live in lodging houses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Two guys? Interesting more info please .

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps "convinced" is a little strong, you're right, but there seems to be a fair few who consider it the more probable explanation that Long missed it. I hold no firm convictions either way. I just couldn't fathom why Jon felt that an absent apron on first passing by Long meant the killer must have taken an indirect route home.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Ben vs Wick Round 4,3837

I have to go with Wick on this one, Ben. I'm aware of a number of serious and well-respected writers who think it possible that Long missed the apron the first time around, but I'm hard pressed to think of one who is "convinced" by this, since there's absolutely zero evidence with which to "convince" anyone of such a conclusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

"Likely" is not evidence, and you know it.

"Likely" is based on the evidence, which I've provided many times. Of course we can't "know" for certain which route he took, but we can make logical inferences based on the location of the GSG in relation to Mitre Square.

Are we ever likely meet any of these, "...serious and well-respected authors and researchers"?

You probably could, quite easily, if you went up to them and said hello. Or, wait, are you seriously suggesting that there are NO serious and well-respected authors and researchers who believe Long missed the apron when he first passed the spot?

You may find out that the City police pursued enquiries in the dwellings.

But Long didn't.

Is this another character attack?

No, it's a simple statement of fact.

He was dismissed a year later for drunkenness on duty.

Shooting the messenger just isn't cricket, Jon.

We.... do not know what route he took, or when he took it, so your objection to my initial point is found to be baseless.
You have no evidence of the route he took away from the crime scene.

We have no proof, but as I've already observed, we can make logical inferences based on the evidence. We can also make silly ones in order to defend a particular non-local suspect theory. I tend to give the latter a bit of a swerve, though, me.

How would he get them there? in a coach, or on his Barra'

Or on foot.

Well, not only did they turn dwellings inside out we have complaints about police procedures on this issue

You need to be more specific than that.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the killer spent his nights a lodging house. Let's also assume he wasn't completely clumsy and stupid. Let's further assume that the police then checked out this doss house at some point as part of their search. What do you seriously expect them to have unearthed in terms of incriminating evidence?

"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Yes, that was the Star's own opinion.

But you hate the Star, remember, and you chastise me on numerous occasions for quoting from them.

And now this...

[Tom_Wescott]

If the kidney sent to Mr lusk was genuine then would our killer have been able to stash it in a common lodging house before he posted it?.

No. And I don't know how legit the kidney was, but it was sent by two guys who did not live in lodging houses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

The police regularly searched the lodging houses which must make it less likely (although of course not impossible) that the culprit lived in one.

No they didn't.

Is Mumford an authority on that subject?

More so than you, less so than me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Early suspect, James Mumford, advised that if they wanted to find the killer they should "look to the lodging houses." He may have been right.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

So, what do we do now?

[Wickerman]

You've just finished lecturing me, very tediously, on the most successful way of ensuring that the "atmosphere on Casebook discussions" improves, and yet here I find you accusing me, irritatingly and completely without foundation, of passing assumptions off as facts. But look at the very careful terminology I used:

"There is evidence that the killer did not use the main thoroughfares to make his escapes"

I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm just saying there is evidence. Please acquaint yourself with that crucial, if rather obvious, distinction.

"in all likelihood, he took the most direct route to the apron disposal location"

You see? Likely as opposed to definite.

You said - "There is evidence".
"Likely" is not evidence, and you know it.

Not to you perhaps, but an appreciable number of serious and well-respected authors and researchers consider it a perfectly "convincing" ..

Are we ever likely meet any of these, "...serious and well-respected authors and researchers"?

......scenario that PC Long, who failed to investigate the occupants of the Wentworth Model Dwellings

You may find out that the City police pursued enquiries in the dwellings.

...and who was dismissed a year later for being drunk on duty, may have missed it.

Why? - what has the following year got to do with this?
Is this another character attack?

At the very least, the idea receives no less mainstream support than the notion that the apron was absent when Long first passed the spot.

Support has nothing to do with it, you said there was evidence, then, all you can offer is a possibility, one of several - that is not evidence.
We.... do not know what route he took, or when he took it, so your objection to my initial point is found to be baseless.
You have no evidence of the route he took away from the crime scene.

Even if the apron wasn't there first time around, how does this argue against him taking the most direct route?

I didn't say it did, I have said we cannot assume he took that route.

Who's to say that if he did have his own home and lived there alone, he wouldn't have dispatched and disposed of his victims there, like Nielsen, Gacy, and Dahmer did.

How would he get them there? in a coach, or on his Barra'

No evidence at all that the police turned lodging houses "inside out"...

Well, not only did they turn dwellings inside out we have complaints about police procedures on this issue. One woman told the press that they opened up her kitchen cupboard to check inside that too.

I'm not saying that the killer "had" to be local, but it's the safest and most likely explanation given the evidence and what we know, or ought to have informed ourselves, about known serial killers.

Right, so we do agree then (after all this), the killer did not have to be a local man. How likely, or unlikely, is irrelevant, seeing as we have no clue who he was.

[pinkmoon]

If the kidney sent to Mr lusk was genuine then would our killer have been able to stash it in a common lodging house before he posted it?.

[Ben]

It simply is the case that the lodging houdes near the crtime scenes were checked regularl . The 'search area' also took in the biggest cocentration of lodging houses.

I'm not disputing that lodging house checks occurred. I'm saying it's grossly unrealistic to expect any such checks to bear fruit, even if the police unwittingly alighted upon the real killer's bolt-hole at some stage during the investigation. This held especially true for the larger doss houses that could accommodate as many as 500 lodgers on any one night. In such establishments, with multiple comings and goings at all hours of the day and night, monitoring the behaviour of any one of these (randomly selected for special scrutiny because...?) would have been extremely difficult.

If the real killer didn't engage in outwardly "suspicious behaviour", he would not have attracted the attention of any deputy looking out for same.

That doesn't make it impossible that the Ripper lived in a Lodging house but logically it makes it less likely than if no notice was paid to lodging houses.

Notice was paid to everywhere within the house-to-house search zone.

[Lechmere]

It simply is the case that the lodging houses near the crime scenes were checked regularly. The 'search area' also took in the biggest concentration of lodging houses.
The police would ask about irregular movements and suspicious characters and the deputies were primed to keep a look out.
Normal criminals were not part of that equation. I dont doubt that normal crims were very vocal against the Ripper just as criminals nowadays don't like 'nonces'.

That doesn't make it impossible that the Ripper lived in a Lodging house but logically it makes it less likely than if no notice was paid to lodging houses. This surely is obvious.

[Ben]

The police regularly searched the lodging houses which must make it less likely (although of course not impossible) that the culprit lived in one.

That's simply not the case, Lechmere.

That statement would only hold true if there was the remotest chance of anything incriminating being left there by the killer during the day (i.e. if the killer was especially clumsy and incautious). The larger lodging houses were popular with the criminal fraternity because they enabled their residents to become, in essence, needles in a haystack.