our killer been local

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Hunter]

Huh?...

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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