our killer been local

[Ben]

The bolt hole must have been one that allowed him to go in and out without drawing attention to himself. This could not have been the Victoria Home.

Yes, it could have been, Lechmere. Very easily.

Using Jack London as our guide as before, it is clear that the smoking/games room was in a completely different part of the Victoria Home to the dormitories on the upper floors, and the former was not patrolled by a doorman. Were Abby's sensible and convincing proposals to incorporate the Victoria Home specifically, the killer had only to venture inside to retrieve a piece of chalk located in the smoking room (where lights had been extinguished four hours earlier), encounter nobody (at least nobody in authority) and then, having completed his very brief excursion to very nearby northern Goulston Street, hand his brass bed check to the doorman patrolling access to the bedrooms. He would undoubtedly have done so in company with other late/early workers who were resident there, thus attracting precious little attention.

Abby's suggestion remains a valid and compelling one.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/london/abyss/ch20.htm

On the subject of PC Spicer, however, I agree you with entirely. I hope nobody is seriously suggesting that Spicer's alleged "suspect" is a viable candidate for Jack the Ripper.

Best regards,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

Im fascinated by the disregard of the specificity shown by Longs remarks concerning his spotting anything in that particular spot on his first pass by after the Mitre Square murder. "It was not there." How is that ambiguous..or what evidence do we have that this PC was prone to lie when questioned officially?

I believe his remarks are evidence that he couldnt have written the grafitto himself, he would have been more succinct and clear.

The delay in its appearance vexs many. What it might mean could shed a great deal of light on this case, if one doesnt get led astray by discarding what seems to be a rock solid statement.

Cheers

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

But would the killer himself have been that confident, especially a poor local man with little chance to change his clothes or appearance, aware that at any time one of the witnesses could spot him and recognise him?

But there were considerably greater risks attached to killing women on the streets, or in back yards where a casual glance out of a Hanbury Street window, for instance, could have spelt disaster for him, and yet we we know the real killer, whoever he was, went ahead in spite of them.

So too, evidently, did other local/marauder serial killers.

I doubt very much that clothing would have been a problem, so generic was the average poor worker's get-up, consisting usually of a shabby coat and peaked cap. That's not to say he wouldn't have been perturbed by witness sightings of him in the company of his victims, although he might have taken solace in the fact that Lawende, for instance, worked in the City and resided in Dalston, drastically reducing the chances of a second encounter if our killer lived relatively centrally to his crimes. But who knows? Perhaps the prospect of recognition by witnesses did concern him greatly, which is why there were no murders in October? And perhaps this concern prompted a resolve on his part to prevent any further interactions with his victims in places where he could be seen, i.e. on the streets, hence a possible "intruder" scenario with the Kelly murder?

With regard to the suggestion that the killer deliberately left a "false trail" in his placement of the apron and/or graffiti, I believe you yourself have argued that his intention may have been to implicate the Jewish community, who were heavily represented in that particular location. That's already a "false trail", and it didn't involve spending considerable more time than was necessary on those dangerous streets heading in the wrong direction (i.e. in the direction of two police stations, from which police were trafficking between two murder sites), and then doubling back slapbang into the new area of police focus, the City of London.

Alternatives are always worth exploring, but most cases which seem to point towards a local offender as the culprit are usually resolved by the capture of one. I'd be surprised in the extreme if this case was different.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Tom
Sober? Me?

[Fisherman]

F**k me...we are in agreement.

Monty

Not with me, you ain´t.
I do think that the shortcomings on Long´s behalf must be weighed in and open up for a possibility that he was lax on the evening in question. That´s only fair.
But the fact of the matter is that he was totally adamant at the inquest, and that means that the better guess must remain that he did check the doorway, and that he knew that no rag was about at 2.20.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Abby
Your devil's advocate question is a bit of a non starter.
Lechmere's mother lived just the other side of Berner Street - that location connects him to the Stride killing. I doubt he would have doubled back to that crime scene with blood dripping from the apron.
He could however have gone out from a Saturday evening visit to 'mother' equipped with chalk from his schoolgirl daughter who also lived there.
His Broad Street workplace is a potential pre-apron-dumping bolt hole if one were required to accommodate such a theory - but I just can't see the culprit (whoever he was) sneaking back to that spot with a bloody apron.

[Abby Normal]

Abby
Your devil's advocate question is a bit of a non starter.
Lechmere's mother lived just the other side of Berner Street - that location connects him to the Stride killing. I doubt he would have doubled back to that crime scene with blood dripping from the apron.
He could however have gone out from a Saturday evening visit to 'mother' equipped with chalk from his schoolgirl daughter who also lived there.
His Broad Street workplace is a potential pre-apron-dumping bolt hole if one were required to accommodate such a theory - but I just can't see the culprit (whoever he was) sneaking back to that spot with a bloody apron.

Thanks lech. Interesting.
But where was he then in that time frame?

[curious4]

That bloody piece of apron

Hallo all,

The apron piece is described variously as "smeared with blood on one side", "having one corner wet with blood" and by the doctor as having (a smear) of "something which might be faecal matter". Not dripping with blood and faeces then - even Jack had his standards, it seems.

Out of respect for the newer investigators, I think it is important to get the facts straight.

All good wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Did the killer see a policeman coming towards him? Wouldn't the policeman then see the killer.No policeman reports seeing spmeone.

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.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman
I hardly think discounting Spicer’s story can be construed as ignoring something that causes a wrinkle to my theory.

I didn't have your theory in mind, it is just a sad reality that certain known details are often ignored by theorists.
What I was really getting at was that some people will discount a suspect because he did not live towards the same direction that the location of the piece of apron suggests - eastward.
This to my mind is rash, seeing as we don't know why the killer headed in that direction. The assumption that he was headed home is merely that, an assumption. We do not know why he headed east - there may be another quite valid reason.

Regarding the freshness of the graffiti – you are guessing that Halse was guessing. Halse saw it – you and I didn’t. I would suggest that one can tell whether chalk writing is fresh or not – whether it is blurred or crisp. Chalk also leave a slight ‘3D’ effect with bits sticking off slightly proud of the surface, these tend to be the bits that deteriorate first.

Just a minute Lechmere.
You are telling me that you can tell whether some chalk graffiti was written at 2:00 am or at say, 9:00 pm the previous night?
Sorry, I don't believe you.

The graffiti does not need to be days old, only hours old, written by some disgruntled person the previous night.

Regarding the size of the lettering.
By leaving the apron below the message – if he wrote the graffiti – the killer can have been fairly sure that it would have been noticed. Also the height of the bricks somewhat constrained the height of the lettering. It seems to me that he used the height and courses of the bricks as if they were lines on a page.
The doors jambs were only about a foot and a half wide. If he had written his message in a large script he would have only been able to write one word per line.

The wall outside was plenty wide enough, and the light would have been better.

I don’t think it is a stunt to point out that Long was dismissed for drunkenness. It is a material fact to bear in mind when evaluating his reliability.

Not when it happened the following year, if the same week then I would agree, but not the next year. Stress & pressure got to a lot of beat constables eventually - anything could have happened in his life in the subsequent ten months to change him.

I rather doubt that a beat officer would routinely go in and up each stairwell on his beat. Long made no such claim.

It was part of his duty to look inside any public access, he isn't required to go up every staircase. Have you looked at the layout of Goulstone St.?
He coud have been occupied checking any of those recesses between buildings.

[Bridewell]

Hi, Bridewell,
Doesn't that mean that you are seeing the killer as a thinker, as someone who was conscious of such matters?

Any further thoughts on that?

Thx,
curious

I don't see any reason to suppose that he wasn't a thinker. If he hadn't been sufficiently aware to take basic steps to avoid capture he would have been caught.

[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

[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]

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

[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.