From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[John Wheat]

I am not saying PC Long was incorrect but nor can we say he was indeed correct. So it is an open question. The fact that the graffitti was written down differently by others leaves doubt over his competence. I think it is highly significant if PC Long was correct and the Apron was not there at 2:20am. That would mean the one real clue we have on the Rippers direction of travel after a murder is incorrect.

Hi Sunny Delight. Yes I agree with what you're saying. I think for the reasons you state we can't really draw any definitive conclusions from the GSG or the apron.

[Sunny Delight]

I agree Sunny Delight it means the GSG could have been written by someone who was Jewish or someone not Jewish. So basically anyone. Also it could have been written by Jack the Ripper or not

I am not saying PC Long was incorrect but nor can we say he was indeed correct. So it is an open question. The fact that the graffitti was written down differently by others leaves doubt over his competence. I think it is highly significant if PC Long was correct and the Apron was not there at 2:20am. That would mean the one real clue we have on the Rippers direction of travel after a murder is incorrect.

[DJA]

Thanks for your help PI1.
We have someone with surgical skill and knowledge of anatomy running around with chalk at the start of the teaching term.
He is about 5'3" tall (sic).
And the cops remove his very neat handwriting

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[The graffito were] evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews,... but after taking into consideration... the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews,... I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate... I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have have been an onslaught upon the Jews... I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr. Montagu was to shew to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street Murder cleared up, and thus to divert from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up...

[enclosure]

The Jewes are
The men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing

(SIR CHARLES WARREN)

[DJA]

IThis is perhaps my biggest pet peeve with many writers on the case. They disregard what they consider inconvenient.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Personally do not understand why people think GSG was aimed at the Jews.

Seems JtR was taunting the police,by informing them that he murdered "Nothing".

Incidentally,the apron was luring attention away from Mitre Square,while JtR was heading toward 13 Millers Court.

By the way Tom,if you clear your PMs,I'd like to contact you regarding your interest in my research

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

Excellent work but I personally do not subscribe to the suggestion that he had a bolt hole and went home and then came out again, that would be an act whereby he would be unnecessarily risking being stopped by the police and apprehended, after all he was not to know that someone somewhere had seen him and given the police a description of him, or simply risking being stopped and checked.

Looking at the murder locations on the map, it has also to be considered that he made good his escape as soon as possible from each murder putting as much distance as possible between him and each murder. Each of the murder locations as can be seen is very close to a major thoroughfare with the exception of Stride, but of course there is doubt as to whether she was a ripper victim, so that being said it would have been more sensible for him to simply make his way quickly to one of the major thoroughfares and simply blended in with the early morning pedestrians before the bodies were discovered and the hue and cry went out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thanks. I'm not convinced he did have a bolt hole to which he went and then came back out, but I think it is a possibility that needs to be considered, so for this analysis I'm just considering that line of inquiry.

And yes, I think the major streets are important to consider. I've got a suspicion that JtR probably regularly prowled a circuit, of Commercial Street to Whitechapel then east to Vallance and up to Hanbury, then back to Commerical Street (or in the other direction of course) . The stretch where Commerical Street becomes Commercial Road, is an easy optional route to take (the above doesn't mean he's not making side trips sometimes, but generally following those main roads as a circuit).

Obviously, that could be wrong, but given his series and the probability he was out looking a lot more than he actually killed, those would be the streets to keep an eye out for anyone seen regularly and acting at all suspiciously.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

I do not dismiss PC Long's account but I do see some issues whereby his competence could be questioned. There is no confusion on guidelines- ex-Police officers on here well versed in Victorian policing have declared that forgetting or not bringing your notebook to an inquest is something that would embarrass a probationer. That is not of course a judgement on the man himself who I do believe was telling the truth as he knew it.

PC Long: 'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'

DC Halse: 'The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."

I do not believe that DC Halse amended his view. It could be that DC Halse was mistaken but equally it could have been PC Long. We will never know but it does leave a question. As for his first night on the beat it depends how competent the officer is. For me someone familiar with their beat will notice something unusual or notice something that seems different. Someone unfamiliar but competent may well have a very heightened sense of responsibility but someone less competent may not. It really depends on the individual.

I agree Sunny Delight it means the GSG could have been written by someone who was Jewish or someone not Jewish. So basically anyone. Also it could have been written by Jack the Ripper or not

[Abby Normal]

I do not dismiss PC Long's account but I do see some issues whereby his competence could be questioned. There is no confusion on guidelines- ex-Police officers on here well versed in Victorian policing have declared that forgetting or not bringing your notebook to an inquest is something that would embarrass a probationer. That is not of course a judgement on the man himself who I do believe was telling the truth as he knew it.

PC Long: 'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'

DC Halse: 'The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."

I do not believe that DC Halse amended his view. It could be that DC Halse was mistaken but equally it could have been PC Long. We will never know but it does leave a question. As for his first night on the beat it depends how competent the officer is. For me someone familiar with their beat will notice something unusual or notice something that seems different. Someone unfamiliar but competent may well have a very heightened sense of responsibility but someone less competent may not. It really depends on the individual.

and yet its Longs rendition that became the consensus all the way down to this day.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PC Long: 'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'

DC Halse: 'The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."

I have suggested that

The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing

means about the same as

It is not for nothing that the Jews will be held responsible

If Halse was right and the message read:

The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing

then it must mean the opposite of

The Juwes are the men who will be blamed for nothing

In other words, the Jews are guilty!

And that, I suggest, is what the murderer really meant.

[JeffHamm]

Nice, work Jeff. And while I don't buy into geoprofiling in a big way, one cannot dispute the effort involved and the interesting points it shows.

However, there is a big mistake, one which was repeated in the BBC documentary a couple of years ago. That is the location of Aaron Kosminski in 1888.
Now it is a problem, as we have no addresses for him until 1890.

You place him in Sion Square, which is where he was living with his brother Woolf in mid 1890( when he was first taken to the workhouse).
However, in 1888 Woolf was not living in Sion Square, but in Provdence Street , slightly to the south of Berner Street.
In early 89, he moved to Yalford street, to the North Berner.
The rest of the Kosminski family were living mostly in Greenfield Street, next to Yalford.

Yalford and Greenfield place the possible location for AK, and a bolt hole. much closer to your southern area. However Providence, is right in the heart of it

Steve

Hi Steve,

Spatial analysis is just another tool that provides a summary of the crime spatial distribution. It isn't intended to be a "solution" really, rather an informed suggested starting point. As such, I believe it is worth considering, but not to the exclusion of alternative ideas.

Anyway, thanks for the update on Kosminski's address. I should update my suspect map as there are a few errors on it. I hadn't heard that Kosminski wasn't at Sion Square at the time, so will definitely need to update his location marker. Interesting that he ends up in the secondary hot spot (if he was in Prov. Str.) Mind you, even if he wasn't living with his brother at the time, the main thing is that he has a link (anchor point) to that location, as it seems probable he would have stayed with his brother on some occasions, making him familiar with that area. My issue is that if he was living in that area, why does JtR leave it after the Stride murder to kill Eddowes? But that's a different issue.

Once again I'm much obliged for the corrections, so thanks again.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

There is always different ways of looking at it, but if you recall he showed his report to his Inspector who had to read his note to correct the spelling of Juws. The Inspector would know if the notes were not correct, so there we have silent confirmation.
Halse didn't have his version confirmed by anyone.
He was dismissed about 6 months later, not an uncommon occurrence, the life of a beat constable was hard, and he wasn't the only one who drank. We shouldn't treat that as an exception given the records available to historians today of how tough the job was.

Some do choose to accuse him of being drunk, yet the Inspector who was with him would have dismissed him on the spot had that been true.
There is no suggestion he had been drinking prior to Oct. 1888, that only occurred later in 1889. Which means we can't use drink as an excuse as that only happened months later, anything could ave happened in his life to turn him to drink in 1889.
I know much has been made of him not bringing his pocketbook to the inquest, it's another example of overplaying the incident. PC Long wrote his account of the events to bring to court, the coroner refers to it. Obviously he would do that so he didn't need to bring the pocketbook.

I think some confuse with what a constable is expected to do today with what was done a century ago, guidelines were not so rigid in the early days of policing.
The fact he was on his first shift of a new beat, as has been noted before, and just recently by Tom W., argues more for the likelyhood he would be more alert rather than complacent. I know, and I suspect you would agree, when you are given a new task you are more alert to what might be expected even to the point of being too slow. You speed up when you get more familiar, which is what we should expect from PC Long on his first night on a new beat. He would more likely be looking in every nook and cranny because of his unfamiliarity with the area.

I do not dismiss PC Long's account but I do see some issues whereby his competence could be questioned. There is no confusion on guidelines- ex-Police officers on here well versed in Victorian policing have declared that forgetting or not bringing your notebook to an inquest is something that would embarrass a probationer. That is not of course a judgement on the man himself who I do believe was telling the truth as he knew it.

PC Long: 'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'

DC Halse: 'The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."

I do not believe that DC Halse amended his view. It could be that DC Halse was mistaken but equally it could have been PC Long. We will never know but it does leave a question. As for his first night on the beat it depends how competent the officer is. For me someone familiar with their beat will notice something unusual or notice something that seems different. Someone unfamiliar but competent may well have a very heightened sense of responsibility but someone less competent may not. It really depends on the individual.

[Abby Normal]

There is always different ways of looking at it, but if you recall he showed his report to his Inspector who had to read his note to correct the spelling of Juws. The Inspector would know if the notes were not correct, so there we have silent confirmation.
Halse didn't have his version confirmed by anyone.
He was dismissed about 6 months later, not an uncommon occurrence, the life of a beat constable was hard, and he wasn't the only one who drank. We shouldn't treat that as an exception given the records available to historians today of how tough the job was.

Some do choose to accuse him of being drunk, yet the Inspector who was with him would have dismissed him on the spot had that been true.
There is no suggestion he had been drinking prior to Oct. 1888, that only occurred later in 1889. Which means we can't use drink as an excuse as that only happened months later, anything could ave happened in his life to turn him to drink in 1889.
I know much has been made of him not bringing his pocketbook to the inquest, it's another example of overplaying the incident. PC Long wrote his account of the events to bring to court, the coroner refers to it. Obviously he would do that so he didn't need to bring the pocketbook.

I think some confuse with what a constable is expected to do today with what was done a century ago, guidelines were not so rigid in the early days of policing.
The fact he was on his first shift of a new beat, as has been noted before, and just recently by Tom W., argues more for the likelyhood he would be more alert rather than complacent. I know, and I suspect you would agree, when you are given a new task you are more alert to what might be expected even to the point of being too slow. You speed up when you get more familiar, which is what we should expect from PC Long on his first night on a new beat. He would more likely be looking in every nook and cranny because of his unfamiliarity with the area.

bingo wick
good post and totally agree. and as Ive said many times, Long was the one who found the only clue the ripper ever left, so he should be given much credit for his alertness. and yet he gets denigrated on here by some. good grief.

[Tom_Wescott]

There has to be a good reason to reject someone's record of what happened and that does not apply to Long.

I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps my biggest pet peeve with many writers on the case. They disregard what they consider inconvenient. Strikes me as lazy and irresponsible.

It is also different with Anderson and Swanson, both of whom are obviously unreliable,

Doh!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I do not see any reason to doubt the reliability of Long's evidence.

His wording of the message was accepted by Scotland Yard, although not the spelling of the word Jews.

There has to be a good reason to reject someone's record of what happened and that does not apply to Long.

It is different with Elizabeth Long.

It is also different with Anderson and Swanson, both of whom are obviously unreliable, which could be why Elamarna is taking so long to reply to my # 875 in The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose? in which I point out that Anderson made an obviously untrue claim about a development in the investigation of the Whitechapel murders.

[Wickerman]

It is true that PC Long was certain it had not been there. However as we know what he copied down as the graffitti was in contradiction to others (maybe he wrote it down correctly- but there is a possibility he didnt). We know he was dismissed 9 months after this for reasons unknown- I have seen it said he was drunk on duty- is that certain? We know that he forgot his pocket book when on the stand during the Inquest and had to be told to retrieve it. That would embarrass a probationer. This was his first or one of his first nights on the new beat was it not?

It just strikes me that PC Long no doubt believed it was not there, however there are many caveats to his certainty which is based on his competence.

There is always different ways of looking at it, but if you recall he showed his report to his Inspector who had to read his note to correct the spelling of Juws. The Inspector would know if the notes were not correct, so there we have silent confirmation.
Halse didn't have his version confirmed by anyone.
He was dismissed about 6 months later, not an uncommon occurrence, the life of a beat constable was hard, and he wasn't the only one who drank. We shouldn't treat that as an exception given the records available to historians today of how tough the job was.

Some do choose to accuse him of being drunk, yet the Inspector who was with him would have dismissed him on the spot had that been true.
There is no suggestion he had been drinking prior to Oct. 1888, that only occurred later in 1889. Which means we can't use drink as an excuse as that only happened months later, anything could ave happened in his life to turn him to drink in 1889.
I know much has been made of him not bringing his pocketbook to the inquest, it's another example of overplaying the incident. PC Long wrote his account of the events to bring to court, the coroner refers to it. Obviously he would do that so he didn't need to bring the pocketbook.

I think some confuse with what a constable is expected to do today with what was done a century ago, guidelines were not so rigid in the early days of policing.
The fact he was on his first shift of a new beat, as has been noted before, and just recently by Tom W., argues more for the likelyhood he would be more alert rather than complacent. I know, and I suspect you would agree, when you are given a new task you are more alert to what might be expected even to the point of being too slow. You speed up when you get more familiar, which is what we should expect from PC Long on his first night on a new beat. He would more likely be looking in every nook and cranny because of his unfamiliarity with the area.