From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[DJA]

We have all the information/evidence we require.
Just a matter of joining the dots.
Hope to have the time to do so,again,this coming week.

[JeffHamm]

Suspect based theories are in my opinion travelling down the rabbit hole. The evidence becomes twisted to ensure it can be affiliated with said suspect. Small details are determined to be huge issues. For me it is clear now that the case cannot be solved unless a treasure trove of documents are miraculously discovered. Even then we may only find suspects who are interesting. Too much time has passed now, too many documents are missing for us as it stands.

We can say some things based on all probability:

- The killer was in all probability employed in a stable job.

- The killer in all probability had his own lodgings.

- The killer in a probability lived in Whitechapel.

- The killer in all probability was a local man.

That is about the height of what we can say with a degree of certainty. The pattern of the killings around bank holidays and weekends suggest a stable job. The fact the killer had a stable job likely offered the killer security to take his own lodgings. Also the killer returning to Lodging houses after the murders appears implausible. The direction of travel from Mitre Square to Goulston Street suggests the killer was heading home into the heart of Whitechapel. The fact that the killer struck in different areas of Whitechapel and managed to escape undetected suggests that he knew the area and was comfortable operating there. Also if we accept Israel Scwhartz evidence the racial slur suggests a local.

And that is it for me. That's all we can take. How one can begin to build a case against a suspect based on that is not feasible.

Hi,

I also believe there is insufficient information to identify JtR. I think the best we can do is work out the details of the events, as best we can, and even that is difficult. It's impossible, for example, to completely rule out any of the exits from Mitre Square, although I think one can order them in terms of probability. We can't rule out entirely the apron being dropped as JtR left the scene vs he came back later, though again we can try and order them in terms of which seems the more supported idea (and that gets tricky as to do so involves a lot of subjective calls, which lead to preferring different options). If we can't narrow down the details of what happened, we're not going to be able to make all the steps necessary to connect the dots to who JtR was.

And of course, we can't collect new information, to answer the questions we think of when exploring the testimonies.

As you say, without an influx of genuinely new information, suspect theories are often more about fitting the evidence to the suspect than following the evidence to a suspect.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my alternative suggestions below.

We can say some things based on all probability:

- The killer was in all probability employed in a stable job.

Someone who spends his nights stalking streetwalkers does not seem to me to be the kind of person who would be in a stable job.

- The killer in all probability had his own lodgings.

He must have lived alone.

- the killer in a probability lived in whitechapel.

The killer in all probability lived in Spitalfields.

- The killer in all probability was a local man.

How can we even be sure that he was British?

That is about the height of what we can say with a degree of certainty. The pattern of the killings around bank holidays and weekends suggest a stable job.

What bank holidays?

Why would a person with a stable job tend to commit murders on Friday mornings?


The fact the killer had a stable job likely offered the killer security to take his own lodgings. Also the killer returning to Lodging houses after the murders appears implausible. The direction of travel from Mitre Square to Goulston Street suggests the killer was heading home into the heart of Whitechapel.

Again: Spitalfields, not Whitechapel!

The fact that the killer struck in different areas of Whitechapel and managed to escape undetected suggests that he knew the area and was comfortable operating there. Also if we accept Israel Scwhartz evidence the racial slur suggests a local.

Israel Schwartz's evidence suggests a gentile assailant, but Schwartz did not see the murderer.


And that is it for me. That's all we can take. How one can begin to build a case against a suspect based on that is not feasible.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny Delight,

I lean towards the same idea, that he dropped it while leaving. I can't completely dismiss the idea he may have first gone home and then came back out to discard the apron as PC Long is quite definite in his statement that it wasn't there. However, if he missed it, he would think that it wasn't there and so could have quite a strong, if mistaken, belief. There's just no way to really tease apart those two possibilities. Given PC Long was doing his first night of patrol on that beat, and didn't know about the backyard of the buildings due to that unfamiliarity, I think there is good reason to consider that he was mistaken. Also, DO Halse stated he passed by the location around the same time PC Long would have (when he missed it), and said he didn't notice the apron at that time but acknowledge he would not necessarily have seen it if it was there. His testimony, of course, fits both with the idea that PC Long missed it and with it not being there at that time. As always, we're left with options.

I'm also not convinced the graffiti was written by JtR, though of course it could have been. To me, though, I'm not sure any theory really falls apart simply due to which of those is true. Any theory which begins with the graffiti having been written by JtR, and then proceeds to build upon that is, in my view, on very shaky ground as the foundation is something that is not reliable. Beyond those, however, any suspect-based theory can easily deal with either situation because a suspect theory can equally handle saying their suspect wrote the graffiti or that they didn't, neither is going to result in any meaningful change in the evaluation of that suspect.

- Jeff

Suspect based theories are in my opinion travelling down the rabbit hole. The evidence becomes twisted to ensure it can be affiliated with said suspect. Small details are determined to be huge issues. For me it is clear now that the case cannot be solved unless a treasure trove of documents are miraculously discovered. Even then we may only find suspects who are interesting. Too much time has passed now, too many documents are missing for us as it stands.

We can say some things based on all probability:

- The killer was in all probability employed in a stable job.

- The killer in all probability had his own lodgings.

- The killer in a probability lived in Whitechapel.

- The killer in all probability was a local man.

That is about the height of what we can say with a degree of certainty. The pattern of the killings around bank holidays and weekends suggest a stable job. The fact the killer had a stable job likely offered the killer security to take his own lodgings. Also the killer returning to Lodging houses after the murders appears implausible. The direction of travel from Mitre Square to Goulston Street suggests the killer was heading home into the heart of Whitechapel. The fact that the killer struck in different areas of Whitechapel and managed to escape undetected suggests that he knew the area and was comfortable operating there. Also if we accept Israel Scwhartz evidence the racial slur suggests a local.

And that is it for me. That's all we can take. How one can begin to build a case against a suspect based on that is not feasible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Agreed. It's a red herring. Over the years it has taken on a significance it should never have had. Warren had the right idea in having it scrubbed out. But it will forever remain a bone of contention I am sure because one way or another we can't prove whether or not it was written by the killer.

How long do you think anti-Jewish graffito chalked on the entrance to a building inhabited by Jews would have remained intact?

Where is the evidence that such graffiti were ever tolerated by Jewish residents of the area?

How long do you think the graffito had been there?

The apron must have been left there between about 1.50 and 2.50 a.m.

Do you think the residents went to bed and decided to leave a nice message about them on their front door overnight?

[JeffHamm]

I believe the likeliest explanation is that the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street whilst fleeing and Long did not see it first time around. That does not mean I see Long as a liar as he testified under oath just that he was genuinely mistaken. That is just my opinion. There could be a myriad of scenarios we could go through in regards the Apron and graffitti and they are plausible too. There are things we can say for certain though- the killer took part of Eddowes apron and discarded it in Goulston Street. Why he took it and why he discarded it in Goulston Street and at what time we just do not know. We can speculate and we can choose our favoured scenario but only the killer knows these answers.

I see the Apron as the only real genuine clue in the whole Ripper series. For me the killer is going home, discards the Apron and continues on the journey. That tells us that this is in all probability a Whitechapel local. Not much to go on mind you.

Hi Sunny Delight,

I lean towards the same idea, that he dropped it while leaving. I can't completely dismiss the idea he may have first gone home and then came back out to discard the apron as PC Long is quite definite in his statement that it wasn't there. However, if he missed it, he would think that it wasn't there and so could have quite a strong, if mistaken, belief. There's just no way to really tease apart those two possibilities. Given PC Long was doing his first night of patrol on that beat, and didn't know about the backyard of the buildings due to that unfamiliarity, I think there is good reason to consider that he was mistaken. Also, DO Halse stated he passed by the location around the same time PC Long would have (when he missed it), and said he didn't notice the apron at that time but acknowledge he would not necessarily have seen it if it was there. His testimony, of course, fits both with the idea that PC Long missed it and with it not being there at that time. As always, we're left with options.

I'm also not convinced the graffiti was written by JtR, though of course it could have been. To me, though, I'm not sure any theory really falls apart simply due to which of those is true. Any theory which begins with the graffiti having been written by JtR, and then proceeds to build upon that is, in my view, on very shaky ground as the foundation is something that is not reliable. Beyond those, however, any suspect-based theory can easily deal with either situation because a suspect theory can equally handle saying their suspect wrote the graffiti or that they didn't, neither is going to result in any meaningful change in the evaluation of that suspect.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

I believe the likeliest explanation is that the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street whilst fleeing


There was no need for him to be carrying the apron piece while fleeing and no need for him to discard it either.



and Long did not see it first time around. That does not mean I see Long as a liar as he testified under oath just that he was genuinely mistaken. That is just my opinion.


Long was definite that the apron piece was not there at about 2.20 a.m.

And that was not just his opinion.



There could be a myriad of scenarios we could go through in regards the Apron and graffitti and they are plausible too. There are things we can say for certain though- the killer took part of Eddowes apron and discarded it in Goulston Street. Why he took it and why he discarded it in Goulston Street and at what time we just do not know. We can speculate and we can choose our favoured scenario but only the killer knows these answers.


And I suppose the fact that the building was inhabited by Jews is purely coincidental, as is the fact that the writing about Jews and guilt was practically pointing to a bloodstained article of clothing from the most recent murder.



I see the Apron as the only real genuine clue in the whole Ripper series. For me the killer is going home, discards the Apron and continues on the journey. That tells us that this is in all probability a Whitechapel local. Not much to go on mind you.


It tells us that the murderer lived in Spitalfields.

[Sunny Delight]

I am doing no such thing.

I stated that there was no need for him to have done certain things - and that IS a fact.

How do you know there was no need? That is the point. You don't know.

[Sunny Delight]

If he had dropped it any where else, we would be asking the same question. Why? And coming up with similar speculation. On the balance of probability and indications from other crimes i.e. a lack of communication I believe the graffiti is a red herring. Though interesting, it has just confused things over the years and allowed for too many wild presumptions to be made, especially when it comes to tying it to particular suspects or agendas.

Agreed. It's a red herring. Over the years it has taken on a significance it should never have had. Warren had the right idea in having it scrubbed out. But it will forever remain a bone of contention I am sure because one way or another we can't prove whether or not it was written by the killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No it isn't it is conjecture. Plain and simple. You are declaring you know a killers mind from 135 years ago.

I am doing no such thing.

I stated that there was no need for him to have done certain things - and that IS a fact.

[Sunny Delight]

It is not conjecture.

It is a statement of fact.

No it isn't it is conjecture. Plain and simple. You are declaring you know a killers mind from 135 years ago.

[Sunny Delight]

Exactly. In any case one can never know the reasons for specific actions. There are situational events, idiosyncratic thoughts at rhe moment, etc To delve into the realm of "But why exactly there ...." is to go down rabbit holes. It was there because that is where he was when he felt it appropriate to discard it. That is as far as we can go, and even that might be too far!
.
For our interest, it is the matter of when? Meaning did PC Long miss it twice (Trevor's idea is that he did, and maybe even 3 times), or once (as per discarded when leaving the scene) or never (the volt hole).?

- Jeff

I believe the likeliest explanation is that the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street whilst fleeing and Long did not see it first time around. That does not mean I see Long as a liar as he testified under oath just that he was genuinely mistaken. That is just my opinion. There could be a myriad of scenarios we could go through in regards the Apron and graffitti and they are plausible too. There are things we can say for certain though- the killer took part of Eddowes apron and discarded it in Goulston Street. Why he took it and why he discarded it in Goulston Street and at what time we just do not know. We can speculate and we can choose our favoured scenario but only the killer knows these answers.

I see the Apron as the only real genuine clue in the whole Ripper series. For me the killer is going home, discards the Apron and continues on the journey. That tells us that this is in all probability a Whitechapel local. Not much to go on mind you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You don't know that. It's all conjecture.

It is not conjecture.

It is a statement of fact.

[Sunny Delight]

He had no need to cut the apron in two, no need to take a piece with him, no need to take it such a great distance, no need to leave it at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews, and no need to leave it in such a position that a message about Jews and guilt was almost pointing to it.

You don't know that. It's all conjecture.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

He had no need to cut the apron in two, no need to take a piece with him, no need to take it such a great distance, no need to leave it at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews, and no need to leave it in such a position that a message about Jews and guilt was almost pointing to it.