our killer been local

[Wickerman]

Jon,
A policeman shouldn't have to be asked what occurred on his patrol,at least not when his information might relate to a serious crime.He should come forward and divulge the particulars.He might be questioned as to his accuracy.

Harry.
No witness gives a running commentary to a Coroner. The witness stays silent until he is asked a question, and he is expected to answer that question.
We are not discussing a murder enquiry, this is a Coroner's Inquest - very different.

It is the most likely that the Killer discarded the apron piece where it was found,as it was of no further use.He took it for a reason and discarded it when that reason had been satisfied.It was in his possession only a short time.The clue lies in Goulstan Street being a part of his escape route.He had a choice of other venues.He chose a route taking him through that street.He resided within a short time period from that street.That is the only consideration I give.It is possible to negotiate a maze,using a set of rules,and having time to spare,it is another e xtremely difficult enterprise in moving through that maze,from one point to another,in the shortest possible time.

No argument there except, we have no idea how long the killer held on to that piece of apron, and, what maze are you referring to?

[Observer]

Of course, the other alternative, although unlikely is, he exited Mitre Square by Church Passage then down Duke Street, Algate High Street, Whitechapel High Street, up Goulston Street.

[Wickerman]

Hi Bride,

Then we'll have to dismiss the testimony of many of the coppers involved in the cases as many were reprimanded for drunkenness or other issues such as sleeping with prostitutes while on the job (PC Harvey), and these were BEFORE the murders occurred as well as after.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, I think Bridewell slipped up there, as no-one knows when Long took his first drink. Being found 'not exemplary' (presumably by Lechmere's standards) in July 1889 does not mean he wasn't exemplary in Sept 1888 - thats only common sense.
Unless of course, anyone knows something we have not uncovered yet?

[Wickerman]

Yes he was. He spoke with two men walking together, but they were able to explain themselves, so he let them go. Two men together weren't deemed that suspicious, vs a lone man or man with a woman not obviously his wife.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I hope you didn't put that in your book.

You're confusing your Long's with your Halse's

[Observer]

Hi Obs,

Considering the location of the apron, I'd say a right turn onto Middlesex Street after Stoney Lane, then onto New Goulston Street (with the crap pub that kicks you out ludicrously early), is a more likely ripper's retreat, since it doesn't involve a detour down Goulston Street itself. The route in question could easily be described as a "maze" to the uninitiated, especially in 1888.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben

This is exactly what I mean.

Bear with me and try and get your head around the following!

Unless he turned around and headed South down Goulston Street, after he dumped the rag, there came a point in time when he arrived at the Wentworth Street, Goulston Street junction. Lets assume it was always his intention to arrive at that point.

Now.

It's a question of whether he intentionally targeted Wentworth model Dwellings to dump the apron section. If he did, then I'd agree a right turn into Middlesex Street, then a left into New Goulston Street would take him onto Wentworth Model Dwellings.

If the WMD site was not on his agenda to dump the rag, and he knew the area well, as he arrived at the junction of Stoney Lane, and Middlesex Street, (and it was always his intention to arrive at the Goulston Street junction with Wentworth Street) I'd say it was more natural to turn left into Middlesex Street, and then right into Wentworth Street, and head East. In short, turning right into Middlesex Street, from Stoney Lane would take you away from Wentworth Street, not a natural thing to do, should your destination be Wentworth Street. Looking at the map illustrates this point far better than I have described it!

Of course, the rag did end up in the doorway of 108-119 WMD, and as you say, if he took a left into Middlesex Street, then he would have had to make a detour down Goulston Street in order to drop the rag.

Consequently, If he knew the area, it looks to me as if his intention was to target the doorway of 108-119 WMD.

Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

Ben
To go back to a point you made earlier regarding the Whitechapel Common Lodging Houses and their occupants.
According to Booth’s investigation the area in which the Victoria Home was situated was very much mid table in terms of relative poverty London wide. It was 58th out of 134 districts.
It is undoubtedly the case that the location of various lodging houses in this district skewed this placing downwards – Dorset Street is also within the same area district as defined by Booth.
For whatever reason there was a concentration of lodging houses of the doss house variety in the part of the East End closest to the City – then and now.
Even in the better lodging house, such as the Victoria Home, blue collar workers did not predominate. They were a small minority. A few stayed there. Usually temporarily before they found better accommodation or if there was a strike.
Most inmates were itinerant workers, casuals who scrapped a living, rather than blue collar.

Abby
I think the apron was almost certainly dumped straight after the murder – in as long a time as it took to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. I think the killer then went to his home.
My preferred suspect uniquely (I think anyway) can conjecturally fit the trigonometry of the ‘Double Event’ plus apron drop and graffito scribble like a glove. With the bonus that the apron drop points to his home but does not overtly implicate him – as his house was a further fifteen minute walk away.
However, if an alternative scenario is required, he could have gone to his work place at Broad Street, gained access, cleaned himself up and returned dropping the apron on his way home which via the quickest route would have taken him back down Wentworth Street past the end of Goulston Street.

Curious4
If the apron was wet with blood I would suggest that it is a fair bet that it would have dripped if held up. I don’t think anyone has suggested it as dripping in faecal matter.

Wickerman
I would agree that some theorists ignore inconvenient facts. Although obviously I would like to hope that I don’t.
Regarding the direction of travel, it should be fairly obvious that it is a ‘bonus’ for a theory if the Ripper’s known movements around the ‘Double Event’ can be made to tie in with his key locations. Similarly it takes some explaining if they do not. For example Druitt would have to have doubled back through an area of intense police activity to regain his lodgings. Not impossible but it raises obvious difficulties.

Incidentally I am not holding myself up as an expert on the rate of deterioration of chalk scribblings. However I would make the commonplace observation that it weathers when left to the elements and fresh chalk writing does tend to have something of a 3D effect with sharp flakes protruding. This being the case, Halse may well have been in a position to make an informed judgement that the graffiti was fresh.
It seems that the writer of the graffiti chose the jamb as the bricks were black – allowing the white chalk writing show up in contrast. This would not have been the case had he written on the exterior wall. Whoever chalked the message chose to broadcast it in small characters.

Long did not claim that he had gone inside any of the stair wells on his previous visit. The recesses were open cellar light wells below ground level that projected into the street. To inspect them all he had to do was peer downwards from the pavement.

Here’s a Goad map of Goulston Street from 1890 I believe – pretty bare arsed. Not many places to miss another copper.

Long incidentally served in the 9th Queen’s Royal Lancers – and almost certainly fought in the Second Afghan War in which that Regiment was heavily engaged. He then joined the police and was part of A Division – the central Whitehall District. Long would only have been human to regard being sent to patrol the back streets of the East End as an ignominious turn to his career.

[Ben]

Hi Obs,

Considering the location of the apron, I'd say a right turn onto Middlesex Street after Stoney Lane, then onto New Goulston Street (with the crap pub that kicks you out ludicrously early), is a more likely ripper's retreat, since it doesn't involve a detour down Goulston Street itself. The route in question could easily be described as a "maze" to the uninitiated, especially in 1888.

Regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Just to add Harry


If Stoney Lane was the route he took to Goulston Street, and his intention was to arrive at the junction of Wentworth Street, and Goulston Street, which is where he ended up, it would have been more natural to turn left as he approached Middlesex Street, rather than right, to arrive at that point. Did he know the area well? Not very clear description I know, but if you look at the map it will give you a much better idea of what I'm suggesting.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

It's not my post but I'll defend it anyway. It's not "a character attack"; it's a statement of fact. If Long was dismissed within the year for being drunk on duty he was not an exemplary officer - because exemplary officers are never drunk on duty.

This is not my post either. What was Long's record prior to the murders? If exemplary, then we have to consider him a competent officer during his time on the beat during the murders.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Jon,
A policeman shouldn't have to be asked what occurred on his patrol,at least not when his information might relate to a serious crime.He should come forward and divulge the particulars.He might be questioned as to his accuracy.
It is the most likely that the Killer discarded the apron piece where it was found,as it was of no further use.He took it for a reason and discarded it when that reason had been satisfied.It was in his possession only a short time.The clue lies in Goulstan Street being a part of his escape route.He had a choice of other venues.He chose a route taking him through that street.He resided within a short time period from that street.That is the only consideration I give.It is possible to negotiate a maze,using a set of rules,and having time to spare,it is another e xtremely difficult enterprise in moving through that maze,from one point to another,in the shortest possible time.

Hi Harry

Mitre Square to Goulston Street was anything but a maze. If he used Stoney Lane, then as soon as he was back onto Duke Street Stoney Lane took him straight onto Middlesex Street. It was then a single right and then a left and he was on Goulston Street.

Regards

Observer

[Ben]

Excellent post, Bridewell...and Harry!

[harry]

Jon,
A policeman shouldn't have to be asked what occurred on his patrol,at least not when his information might relate to a serious crime.He should come forward and divulge the particulars.He might be questioned as to his accuracy.
It is the most likely that the Killer discarded the apron piece where it was found,as it was of no further use.He took it for a reason and discarded it when that reason had been satisfied.It was in his possession only a short time.The clue lies in Goulstan Street being a part of his escape route.He had a choice of other venues.He chose a route taking him through that street.He resided within a short time period from that street.That is the only consideration I give.It is possible to negotiate a maze,using a set of rules,and having time to spare,it is another e xtremely difficult enterprise in moving through that maze,from one point to another,in the shortest possible time.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bride,

Then we'll have to dismiss the testimony of many of the coppers involved in the cases as many were reprimanded for drunkenness or other issues such as sleeping with prostitutes while on the job (PC Harvey), and these were BEFORE the murders occurred as well as after.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Quote:
• Less than a year later Long was dismissed from the police for being drunk on duty, so he was not an exemplary officer.
Yes, Ben has already tried to pull that stunt, as if anything that happened the following year has anything to do with Sept 30th 1888.
This is just a character attack, and plenty of policemen developed drinking problems. Are you saying that Long was not an exemplary officer in Sept. 1888?
If so, how do you know this?

It's not my post but I'll defend it anyway. It's not "a character attack"; it's a statement of fact. If Long was dismissed within the year for being drunk on duty he was not an exemplary officer - because exemplary officers are never drunk on duty.

On the same point - Long was an 'A' Division officer seconded to 'H' Division. If a Divisional Commander is required to supply officers on loan to another Division, does he send his best men - or (human nature being what it is) those he can best spare? I know how it was in my time.

I actually think the seconded officers are, in themselves, a good argument for a local killer. Whitechapel was the most heavily policed area of the capital by far in the autumn of 1888, yet the killer continued to operate in and around Whitechapel despite this. Why? If he wasn't local, why would he not, when the presure was on, seek out victims in the areas where the police presence was reduced? My view - he didn't want to stray into areas he didn't know - he stayed close to home. My guess would be that he lived in Spitalfields,

[Tom_Wescott]

I'll bet the killer would recognise a person as a policeman, before a policeman recognised a person as the killer.


PC Long was never asked if he saw anyone in Goulstone St.

Yes he was. He spoke with two men walking together, but they were able to explain themselves, so he let them go. Two men together weren't deemed that suspicious, vs a lone man or man with a woman not obviously his wife.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott