Did the Ripper live in Goulston Street

[Observer]

Hi

Was having a discussion with a friend recently about the Eddowes murder, and he came up with the following, might I add that I do not agree with him.

He theorises that the killer lived opposite the site in Goulston Street where the apron and message were found. His scenario goes something like this.

The killer decided to transport Eddowes Kidney and womb, in the portion of apron which he cut from her. He then fled the scene. He arrived at his abode in Goulston Street shortly before two o clock, he removed the kidney and womb from the apron. He was aware of the timings of PC Longs beat and as an afterthought to the killing he decided to write a message opposite his abode. Subsequently he waited until Long had left Goulston Street at 2:20 a.m. nipped out wrote the message, and dropped the apron piece next to the message. This is why Long failed to see the apron or message on his beat which had him in Goulston Street at 2:20 a.m.

Why leave such a clue so close to home? The killer reasoned that the police would never suspect someone living as close to the clue of the apron and message as he did. In short, he reasoned that the last place they would be searching for him would be in Goulston Street.

This is his theory, as I said I find it very unlikely, but he requested me to post it here, so here it is.

All the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Obs,

Why leave such a clue so close to home? The killer reasoned that the police would never suspect someone living as close to the clue of the apron and message as he did. In short, he reasoned that the last place they would be searching for him would be in Goulston Street.

I'd have thought that the first place Jack would think the police would search would be the street in which a clue was found.

As to unwrapping the womb and kidney from the apron, then going back out again to deposit said apron... I'd find that hard to believe. The organs were far more incriminating than a manky piece of cloth, and he could have hidden the latter under the floorboards, stuffed it down his trousers, or burned it on the fire, should he have wished. Venturing back out with an incriminating swatch of fabric on his person, rather than staying safely indoors, would only have exposed him to more risk.

[Observer]

Hi Sam

I'd agree, I raised those exact points with my freind at the time.

I think you miss the point regarding the apron though, the point being that the killer used it as a marker to authenticate the message as being written by him. This idea only coming to mind after he had returned to his room in Goulston Street, after he had unwrapped the kidney and womb.



all the best

Observer

[Jeff Leahy]

Just a quick thought on this comment..

But I believe that the killer (almost certainly JtR) stopped at the Goulston Street location because he felt comfortable in this place...safe.

He must have known this location. He had almost certainly been here or stopped here before..

I dont believe he wrote the graffitti..

And i've always beliived hat the graffitti was a red herring that distracts from the important piece of information...

ie why stop here..and why leave he apron?

Pirate

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

To put it as bluntly as possible;

He might have had a stop-in - so to say - of some sort in the area.

But to be a steady inhabitant; probably not.

Also; the easiest presumption for a copper would be a local inhabitant...

All the best
Jukka

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"I believe that the killer (almost certainly JtR) stopped at the Goulston Street location because he felt comfortable in this place"

I am not so sure that he actually stopped at all, Jeff. Maybe he just hurried by, flinging the rag into the doorway as he passed.
Likewise I see no obvious evidence for him being aquainted with the area or feeling safe there. That said, I do believe that he was living somewhere not very far from Goulston Street.
One thing that may be considered here is that Goulston Street was a market Street – and still is, for that matter – and so he may perhaps have made the assumption that a rag thrown in a street that was often covered in litter stood a better chance of staying undetected than if he had thrown it elsewhere. Just a thought.

The best,
Fisherman

[Shelley]

I doubt that a killer who fled the scene of Eddowes murder would return after throwing the incriminating piece of evidence that would tie him to Eddowes murder in the first place, come back to the scene with that incriminating piece of evidence and stand over it chalking a message in the dark, the writing would be all over the place and be somewhat unreadable. The chalked message i believe was written when enough light could be of use so that it could be seen well enough. I don't think that the killer of Eddowes wrote that message at all, just part of the anti-seminitic writings that could be found all over the east-end.

[Roy Corduroy]

Betsy on Goulston

Hi Shelley,

Interestingly, a Kosminski family lived at #76 Goulston St in the 1981 census. Including father Issac and a daughter named Betsy. That's a coincidence because Aaron Kosminski had a sister named Betsy. They were not, however, the same woman. And of course, we don't know if this family lived there in 1888.

But if they did live there at that time, a possible theory emerges, as told by Scott Nelson. The idea is that from the house to house searches, the name Betsy Kosminski would be in a police notebook. Later, when Aaron Kosminski pulled a knife on his sister Betsy, and he was commited to asylum, the coincidence may have turned into suspicion. A possible scenario of how a Kosminski was named as a suspect.

To read the Scott Nelson article click (here).

Roy

[Jeff Leahy]

Or perhaps more simply, Aaron new the door way because the Kosminski's had a family connection?

Wouldn't that simply, be a simpler explanation?

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

Or perhaps more simply, Aaron new the door way because the Kosminski's had a family connection?

Wouldn't that simply, be a simpler explanation?

On the contrary - it's a rather complicated explanation, Jeff. Not only would it require us to believe that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, but that he deliberately decided to implicate a "family connection" by dropping damning evidence in the vicinity. In that sense, the presence of Eddowes' apron in Wentworth Model Dwellings would seem to militate against the Ripper's having had any sort of connection with Goulston Street.

The simplest explanation is that he'd gone far enough away from Mitre Square to feel comfortable, and found a convenient doorway in which he could duck out of view.

[Issack]

One option that I have not seen put forward is this:-

Having completing the murder of Eddows at about 1:40am Issac Kosminski (JTR) returned to his abode at 76 Goulston Street, carrying the stolen body parts wrapped within the cut away piece of Eddows apron. His ‘accomplice’ or ‘lookout’, Aaron Kosminski returned with him, and they both remained hidden within 76 Goulston Street where the body parts were removed from the apron, and possibly disposed of.
About 2:45am (an hour later) Aaron left 76 Goulston Street to return to his abode at 3 Sion Square.
Just as he left, he realised that he still had with him the blood soaked (but now empty) piece of apron stuffed inside his coat pocket. Hearing the approaching P.C Long on his beat Aaron quickly discarded the piece of apron into the doorway of the Wentworth model dwellings as he passed, where it was discovered at 2:55am.

A house to house search was made in the area, and the name Kosminski was noted as acting ‘suspicious’ , to an extent that the premises were watched.


Macnaughten’s Memoranda was actually referring to Issac Kosminski who had been identified as a possible suspect in the house to house search following Eddows murder. (although he only referred to the last name.) He did, however, note that the suspect was being watched by city CID, this is due to the fact that Goulston Street, fell under the city police area, and the original crime of Eddows was within their jurisdiction.

The writing on the wall found above the portion of apron, was, in my opinion, not written by either I.K or A.K and has only been remembered in history due to its location in the same area that the apron was found.

[Jeff Leahy]

Its a nice idea. But there is little evidence to support it.

Where as, Aaron was a Paranoid Schizophrenic (in all probability). And Jack was most probably a lone serial killer..

Sam: I'm not convinced the Rippers thought pattern would have considered implicating someone else or having much regard for his own safety, especially if he was on a mission from God.

Pirate

[Rob Clack]

As far as I can tell there was no number 76 Goulston Street in 1888. But what I do know is that Goulston Street was under Metropolitan Police jurisdiction.

Rob

[Jeff Leahy]

So was Green Field Street? And the family sweat/workshop

Pirate

[Rob Clack]

Yep, Greenfield Street, Sion Square were all Met Police area. Aldgate (if there is a connection) was City Police jurisdiction.

Rob