From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

[Sunny Delight]

Agreed, there was no doubt, his testimony was accepted as given. The only doubts come from modern theorists who have an agenda to promote and Long's testimony stands in their way.

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.

[Wickerman]

what doubts about longs testimony? there are none. he was adamant the apron was not there the first time around. i think its a bit silly to disregard evidence, just because of something we think the killer would or would not do. and besides after what the ripper was used to getting away with going back out to write the gsg was peanuts.

Agreed, there was no doubt, his testimony was accepted as given. The only doubts come from modern theorists who have an agenda to promote and Long's testimony stands in their way.

[Elamarna]

Providence looks the most likely Darryl, but that assumes he was staying with Woolf as he was in 90.
However, one must consider that he may have moved between family adress, so Greenfield St is certainly a possibility.
It would however, give him possible bolts holes in both Greenfield and Provdence.


Steve

[Darryl Kenyon]

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
In the back of my head I am sure I read or heard somewhere that 16 Greenfield st was Kosminski's likeliest address in Autumn 1888 . Though I could be wrong .

Regards Darryl

[Elamarna]

I did another version, this time overlaid with a spatial analysis of the C5 crime locations (referred to as a "geoprofile" in the press and movies).

Rather than put the times he would have to stay at home, I've indicated the amount of time he would have to be travelling. It starts at 9 minutes (yah, odd I know), because of how I originally coded things in terms of the minimum wait time (0 minutes), and worked down to the maximum wait time, and since the start time is 1:41, and the end times either 2:20 or 2:55, the travel times are not "nice" numbers.

Anyway, so the "9" ring means JtR's total travel time is 9 minutes, and the 54 ring indicates he would be traveling (from Mitre Square to there and then back again to Goulston Street) for 54 minutes. I thought this would be a bit more useful as then the ring times don't reflect an assumption about when the apron got dropped off. Also, it might be useful to consider how long JtR would be out and about after having committed at least 1 and maybe 2 murders.

Goulston Street is the Green 6 pointed star. This map also shows some of the other Whitechapel murder locations, so people can consider them as well. It also details some of the various suspects that have been mentioned too (Chapman, though, wasn't living in the indicated location at the time of the JtR crimes, but apparently he was at Cable Street, but I've left that marker there for interest; Also, directly above Kelly's murder location near the edge of the map is a marker for Peabody house. There is no known suspect there, but I had misidentified that location as where Hutchinson was living as it was a boarding house type place. I've left it in because of how it falls in the spatial analysis's region of interest, and because it was low-rent and many single men lived there, so why not?)

I think the take home message is, given the amount of time between 1:41 and the apron's discovery at 2:55, giving JtR 74 minutes to travel, the area that he could potentially have a bolt hole is pretty large! So, I'm sure everyone will be able to argue their favorite suspect "fits".

I think what interests me somewhat is how, if you consider the highest areas of interest (the white and yellow regions; say half way between Kelly and Chapman), then it would suggest JtR walked much less when leaving to discard the apron than he did to get home. That makes a bit of sense to me as he would not want to get too close to the crime scene, and he would not want to be back outside for too long. That area looks to require about 19 minutes total travel, with the Mitre Square - bolt hole leg being roughly twice the proposed "bolt hole to Goulston Street". That makes the first leg roughly 12 m 40 seconds, and the second leg 6m 20 seconds (plus the same amount to return after discarding it). And that, of course, would suggest that he might consider 12-13 minutes an "acceptable risk" to be exposed? I'm just running with things here (some would say running with scissors I suppose), so don't think I'm insisting this must be the case. Heck, I'm not even convinced the spatial analysis is picking up on JtR per se, but may instead be picking up on spatial similarities of the victims themselves, in which case the spatial analysis is a red herring. Still, that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting idea to consider, at least I think it is.

- Jeff

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

[Abby Normal]

This certainly makes the most sense to me. The thing that really throws this in the air is Long. For me there are just too many doubts about his testimony, so much rests on that to come out one way or another with this. When you combine this with the cryptic graffiti, it really makes things difficult. I suppose this is a bit part of the appeal for the case. So many questions and so few definitive answers.

I am sure that the true events of the case as they happened were far more simple and mundane than many would like to imagine! But then we will just never know.

what doubts about longs testimony? there are none. he was adamant the apron was not there the first time around. i think its a bit silly to disregard evidence, just because of something we think the killer would or would not do. and besides after what the ripper was used to getting away with going back out to write the gsg was peanuts.

[Abby Normal]

I did another version, this time overlaid with a spatial analysis of the C5 crime locations (referred to as a "geoprofile" in the press and movies).

Rather than put the times he would have to stay at home, I've indicated the amount of time he would have to be travelling. It starts at 9 minutes (yah, odd I know), because of how I originally coded things in terms of the minimum wait time (0 minutes), and worked down to the maximum wait time, and since the start time is 1:41, and the end times either 2:20 or 2:55, the travel times are not "nice" numbers.

Anyway, so the "9" ring means JtR's total travel time is 9 minutes, and the 54 ring indicates he would be traveling (from Mitre Square to there and then back again to Goulston Street) for 54 minutes. I thought this would be a bit more useful as then the ring times don't reflect an assumption about when the apron got dropped off. Also, it might be useful to consider how long JtR would be out and about after having committed at least 1 and maybe 2 murders.

Goulston Street is the Green 6 pointed star. This map also shows some of the other Whitechapel murder locations, so people can consider them as well. It also details some of the various suspects that have been mentioned too (Chapman, though, wasn't living in the indicated location at the time of the JtR crimes, but apparently he was at Cable Street, but I've left that marker there for interest; Also, directly above Kelly's murder location near the edge of the map is a marker for Peabody house. There is no known suspect there, but I had misidentified that location as where Hutchinson was living as it was a boarding house type place. I've left it in because of how it falls in the spatial analysis's region of interest, and because it was low-rent and many single men lived there, so why not?)

I think the take home message is, given the amount of time between 1:41 and the apron's discovery at 2:55, giving JtR 74 minutes to travel, the area that he could potentially have a bolt hole is pretty large! So, I'm sure everyone will be able to argue their favorite suspect "fits".

I think what interests me somewhat is how, if you consider the highest areas of interest (the white and yellow regions; say half way between Kelly and Chapman), then it would suggest JtR walked much less when leaving to discard the apron than he did to get home. That makes a bit of sense to me as he would not want to get too close to the crime scene, and he would not want to be back outside for too long. That area looks to require about 19 minutes total travel, with the Mitre Square - bolt hole leg being roughly twice the proposed "bolt hole to Goulston Street". That makes the first leg roughly 12 m 40 seconds, and the second leg 6m 20 seconds (plus the same amount to return after discarding it). And that, of course, would suggest that he might consider 12-13 minutes an "acceptable risk" to be exposed? I'm just running with things here (some would say running with scissors I suppose), so don't think I'm insisting this must be the case. Heck, I'm not even convinced the spatial analysis is picking up on JtR per se, but may instead be picking up on spatial similarities of the victims themselves, in which case the spatial analysis is a red herring. Still, that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting idea to consider, at least I think it is.

- Jeff

excellent work as usual jeff!
since to me all the evidence points to the ripper going to his bolt hole and heading back out to write the gsg, im thinking 24-29 circle makes most sense.

[Losmandris]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This certainly makes the most sense to me. The thing that really throws this in the air is Long. For me there are just too many doubts about his testimony, so much rests on that to come out one way or another with this. When you combine this with the cryptic graffiti, it really makes things difficult. I suppose this is a bit part of the appeal for the case. So many questions and so few definitive answers.

I am sure that the true events of the case as they happened were far more simple and mundane than many would like to imagine! But then we will just never know.