From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No-one ever considers what the killer was doing between the murders of Stride and Eddowes.
Roughly 50 minutes separates the two killings, but only 10-15 minutes separates the two murder sites.
He could quite easily have been 'home' once already that night if he lived where you suggest.
The medical evidence concerning the knife used on Stride has never been considered as consistent with the one used on Eddowes.
Had he called in 'home' after his attack on Stride, then decided to go out again but with a different knife?
Allowing for travel time between the two (10-15 mins), there is roughly 30 mins to account for.

That's an interesting theory.

I did once hypothesise that he changed his clothes before depositing the apron in Goulston Street.

It is of course possible that he had already changed them in between the murders that night.

[Losmandris]

I think since Pc Long was definite that he did not overlook the apron at 2.20 a.m., the best evidence is that it was left there later - at some time between 2.20 a.m. and 2.55 a.m.

That suggests that the murderer went home beforehand and that he lived near Goulston Street, in which case he may have deposited the organs at his place of lodging before depositing the apron in Goulston Street.

Having walked the route from Mitre Square through Goulston Street and into Whitechapel, logic suggests he was passing through to get away from the scene of crime. I am even more convinced reading some of the earlier posts on Long's beat and character. He just did not discover the apron until later. It just does not make sense to me that the killer is heading to a bolt hole staying there for a good while and then heading out again really very close to the crime scene. Why? Makes no sense, especially if, like me you do not see the apron and the graffiti are related?

If they are, and the killer did return to the streets and write the Graffiti why Goulston Street? Why there? Not sure if the 'lots of Jewish people lived there' argument washes as there were so many similar streets in the area. Also why intentionally place the apron piece there and not something else? If he had this in mind during the murder i.e. heading home then out again with an item linked to the victim to taunt the police of local Jewish community why not take her hat or some thing more obvious? It would have been relatively easy surely to take something? Then why such small writing? Why not massive to really draw attention to it?

On balance I think it was lucky Long found the apron piece second time around, it could easily have been overlooked as just some street detritus and ignored.

[Darryl Kenyon]

PC Long served in the ninth lancers for 12 yrs and was awarded a distinguished conduct medal. He had also served in the police for 9 yrs before he was dismissed for being drunk on duty.
We simply do not know the circumstances behind why he was drunk. Perhaps he was having a hard time in his personal life ?
Yes him being sacked could call into question his character , but the fact is he had served 21 yrs combined in the army and the police with a distinguished conduct medal to boot.
He could have missed the apron of course, but the graffiti was probably easier to spot yet he wasn't sure if it was written recently IE He wasn't sure if it was there at 2: 20 , but he seems sure about the apron not being there.
I believe if we overlook Pc Longs evidence we overlook a possible clue IE Jack may had some form of bolt hole between Mitre Sq and Goulston st.

Regards Darryl

[Losmandris]

PC Long served in the ninth lancers for 12 yrs and was awarded a distinguished conduct medal. He had also served in the police for 9 yrs before he was dismissed for being drunk on duty.
We simply do not know the circumstances behind why he was drunk. Perhaps he was having a hard time in his personal life ?
Yes him being sacked could call into question his character , but the fact is he had served 21 yrs combined in the army and the police with a distinguished conduct medal to boot.
He could have missed the apron of course, but the graffiti was probably easier to spot yet he wasn't sure if it was written recently IE He wasn't sure if it was there at 2: 20 , but he seems sure about the apron not being there.
I believe if we overlook Pc Longs evidence we overlook a possible clue IE Jack may had some form of bolt hole between Mitre Sq and Goulston st.

Regards Darryl

Interesting points. It is a very small distance between the two sites. Possible of course but I think it would be surprising if he had a bolt hole there?

Just on the idea of a bolt hole, does this supposition imply that the killer was of a member of a 'better off' class, being able to afford somewhere to hide out?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Interesting points. It is a very small distance between the two sites. Possible of course but I think it would be surprising if he had a bolt hole there?

Just on the idea of a bolt hole, does this supposition imply that the killer was of a member of a 'better off' class, being able to afford somewhere to hide out?

Hi L
Just a thought but Jack may have had a key to premises which he knew would be empty at night. One of the buildings on Butchers row perhaps ?

I work at a small postal delivery office [ 30 staff ], and there are four sets of keys [ manager has one and three for different posties ], to open or lock the building in the morning or at night.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Jack could have been spooked by seeing a copper [ maybe the City PC ? ] and ducked into a building , even if he just knew the say, backyard shed was empty. To clean himself and deposit the organs . Forgetting about the apron piece in his pocket perhaps ? which he chucked in the doorway as he hurried up Goulston st ?

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

It just does not make sense to me that the killer is heading to a bolt hole staying there for a good while and then heading out again really very close to the crime scene. Why?


All the studies done of the murderer's movements have concluded that he lived somewhere near Goulston Street.

If he did, then he chose to leave the apron and message near to where he lived.

If so, there is no reason why he could not have gone home first and then, when the coast was clear, gone to Wentworth Dwellings and back home, all in the space of a few minutes.



Makes no sense, especially if, like me you do not see the apron and the graffiti are related?

Of course they were related.

The apron authenticated the message as having come from the murderer.


If they are, and the killer did return to the streets and write the Graffiti why Goulston Street? Why there? Not sure if the 'lots of Jewish people lived there' argument washes as there were so many similar streets in the area.


The murderer chose Goulston Street.

The entrance provided an easy way to leave the message in such a way as a policeman might notice it and it would be protected from the rain.



Also why intentionally place the apron piece there and not something else? If he had this in mind during the murder i.e. heading home then out again with an item linked to the victim to taunt the police of local Jewish community why not take her hat or some thing more obvious? It would have been relatively easy surely to take something?


The apron was the easiest article of clothing to cut in two.

The purpose of cutting it in two was obviously to authenticate the apron as having belonged to Eddowes.

That is why he did not take the whole apron.



Then why such small writing? Why not massive to really draw attention to it?

I don't know.

You would have to ask the murderer!



On balance I think it was lucky Long found the apron piece second time around, it could easily have been overlooked as just some street detritus and ignored.


The fact is he did find it.

If he was unobservant, why did he find it?

Long said he checked the archway at 2.20 and 2.55 and that he did not see the apron at 2.20 a.m. but did see it at 2.55 a.m.

If he was unobservant or negligent, then you would expect him to have missed it at 2.55 too.

[Abby Normal]

PC Long served in the ninth lancers for 12 yrs and was awarded a distinguished conduct medal. He had also served in the police for 9 yrs before he was dismissed for being drunk on duty.
We simply do not know the circumstances behind why he was drunk. Perhaps he was having a hard time in his personal life ?
Yes him being sacked could call into question his character , but the fact is he had served 21 yrs combined in the army and the police with a distinguished conduct medal to boot.
He could have missed the apron of course, but the graffiti was probably easier to spot yet he wasn't sure if it was written recently IE He wasn't sure if it was there at 2: 20 , but he seems sure about the apron not being there.
I believe if we overlook Pc Longs evidence we overlook a possible clue IE Jack may had some form of bolt hole between Mitre Sq and Goulston st.

Regards Darryl

bingo DK! there really is no reason to dismiss longs evidence, as Ive said many times -hes the only one to find a clue in the whole dam case--lets give him some credit!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PC Long served in the ninth lancers for 12 yrs and was awarded a distinguished conduct medal. He had also served in the police for 9 yrs before he was dismissed for being drunk on duty.
We simply do not know the circumstances behind why he was drunk. Perhaps he was having a hard time in his personal life ?
Yes him being sacked could call into question his character , but the fact is he had served 21 yrs combined in the army and the police with a distinguished conduct medal to boot.
He could have missed the apron of course, but the graffiti was probably easier to spot yet he wasn't sure if it was written recently IE He wasn't sure if it was there at 2: 20 , but he seems sure about the apron not being there.
I believe if we overlook Pc Longs evidence we overlook a possible clue IE Jack may had some form of bolt hole between Mitre Sq and Goulston st.

Regards Darryl

I agree.

I have never understood the readiness of so many to disbelieve Long when he testified that he was certain that the apron was not in the archway at about 2.20 a.m.

I would suggest that the murderer's residence was near Goulston Street.

I don't think he needed a bolthole.

[Losmandris]

Please see my replies below.

Can you share those studies that say the killer lived near Goulston Street?

We simply cannot definitely say the piece of apron and the graffiti are related.

Surely if he wanted to attract the attention the police, he would have made the lettering a little bigger or possibly been a bit clearer? i.e. I am the murder. Plenty of places along Goulston Street that were/still are protected from the rain?

Again would not taking her hat, some of her possessions been a more obvious clue to leave? Why go to the effort of cutting of a bit of apron if you are not using it clear your hands/knife or carry the organs?

Just trying to look at this in the most logical/practical way possible. I have no theory or suspect in mind, which in having makes some people more inclined to link the apron with the graffiti, so struggle to put the two together. And having walked the route just feel that he was getting the hell out of there in a hurry. Like everything this is pure supposition. No will come up with the truth unfortunately.

[Losmandris]

Just a thought!

As there was a market on Goulston Street could the killer, carrying the organs in the piece of apron, have come across something more appropriate to put them in like a bit of sacking? Fleeing down Goulston street he sees this picks it up, places the organs in it and flings the piece of apron away somewhere out of the way i.e. the entrance way to the Wentworth buildings?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Can you share those studies that say the killer lived near Goulston Street?

Hi Tristan.

Jeff Hamm is the expert on that subject.

He did post quite a lot of information on it here a few months ago.


We simply cannot definitely say the piece of apron and the graffiti are related.

I think we can say they are connected - beyond a reasonable doubt.

The murderer was acting purposefully.

He cut the victim's apron in two and took one half with him.

He must have done so in order to prove that the half he took with him had belonged to the victim.

Otherwise, he could have taken the whole apron, which would have been easier to do.

What is the point of such an exercise except to authenticate the message as having come from him?

Only the murderer could have taken the piece of apron - and it acted as his signature to the message on the wall.

The act of cutting the apron in two authenticated the piece left at Wentworth Dwellings as having come from the victim and it in turn authenticated the message as having come from the murderer.


Surely if he wanted to attract the attention the police, he would have made the lettering a little bigger or possibly been a bit clearer? i.e. I am the murder. Plenty of places along Goulston Street that were/still are protected from the rain?

I don't think there were plenty of such places along Goulston Street.


Again would not taking her hat, some of her possessions been a more obvious clue to leave? Why go to the effort of cutting of a bit of apron if you are not using it clear your hands/knife or carry the organs?

It was the easiest item of her clothing to cut in half.


Just trying to look at this in the most logical/practical way possible. I have no theory or suspect in mind, which in having makes some people more inclined to link the apron with the graffiti, so struggle to put the two together. And having walked the route just feel that he was getting the hell out of there in a hurry. Like everything this is pure supposition. No will come up with the truth unfortunately.

[Losmandris]

Please see my replies below.

I think this is a case of lets just agree to disagree. Lets just leave it at that.

[c.d.]

I think this is a case of lets just agree to disagree. Lets just leave it at that.

Oh my God! An actual grown up! How did they get in here?

I really wish a lot more people on these boards would take the same approach.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

bingo DK! there really is no reason to dismiss longs evidence, as Ive said many times -hes the only one to find a clue in the whole dam case--lets give him some credit!

Maybe, although an officer with nine years service who attends an inquest to give evidence without being in possession of the relevant pocket book doesn't exactly inspire confidence. That's a novice's mistake which would embarrass a probationer.