From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Long just did not see the apron piece first time around, easy mistake to make, easy to gloss over too.

He was definite that it was not there at that time.

Halse, who was a detective, testified that although he did not notice the apron at about the same time, he could not say whether it was there at that time.

The evidence we have is that it was there.

[Losmandris]

To go back to what I was saying originally. If from Mitre Square you have a rough idea of which direction Whitechapel is (which I did) and then start heading that way it is very easy to end up in Goulston Street. Maybe it is the way the streets are laid out or something or is just the most direct route but you just pass through there. And that is exactly what I think happened. The murderer is back on home turf or indeed just back home in Whitechapel 10 or so minutes after the murder. Having dropped the apron piece, for whatever reason in Goulston Street on the way back. He is not hanging around or heading out at a later point. Long just did not see the apron piece first time around, easy mistake to make, easy to gloss over too.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

You asked "It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?". That is the question I answered. The motivation for his cutting up women is a whole different question and answer.

We will have to differ on whether a conviction for a crime that ended his career and his ability to support his family should be regarded as "petty".

Just on the likely escape route, why Stoney Lane?

Mitre St - King St - Duke St - Stoney Lane is the most direct route to the GSG. We can't know his preference regarding back street vs main road escape routes.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I feel that the crime remains petty (theft of meat/receiving stolen goods), but you're suggesting that the motive is not petty.

Aye, we'll disagree on whether or not that is a reasonable motive for these most serious of crimes.

On Stoney Lane. Is it? It looks very much to me like the simplest and most direct route is straight up Aldgate High Street onto Whitechapel Road, and straight down Goulston Street: one turn after leaving Mitre Street. 'Debatable I suppose.

Just a minor point, George: all of the ideas we put forward involve unknowns. It's a common theme on the board that posters put forward an idea that involves unknowns, and half way through the same conversation use "we can't know" or "we just don't know", i.e. there are unknowns in your idea and so it's a dead end (when a few posts earlier in the same conversation they put forward an idea that involved unknowns).

In the event all posters on here employed "we just don't know" or "we can't know", then there wouldn't be a board given that every idea contains unknowns. There'd be no use in having conversations, every idea would be a dead end not worth pursuing on the basis that "we can't know" or "we just don't know".

No offence intended, a minor point but I think it's worth mentioning in order to keep conversations in the spirit of an exchange of ideas.

[GBinOz]

Cheers George.

Aye, it's interesting, but in the final analysis you have to believe that a man went 'round carving up women because he was convicted of a petty crime.

Hi FM,

You asked "It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?". That is the question I answered. The motivation for his cutting up women is a whole different question and answer.

We will have to differ on whether a conviction for a crime that ended his career and his ability to support his family should be regarded as "petty".

Just on the likely escape route, why Stoney Lane?

Mitre St - King St - Duke St - Stoney Lane is the most direct route to the GSG. We can't know his preference regarding back street vs main road escape routes.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Well, George, that's a surprising answer in that you are agreeing with me, except about the murderer's purpose in taking the apron piece in the first place.

There is evidence that the murderer wiped a bloody knife on the apron piece, but not of a bloody handprint on it.

Hi PI1,

Long's testimony at the Inquest reported in the Daily Telegraph:
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

If a bleeding finger is bound, starting with the corner of a piece of fabric, the corner will be wet with blood and the fabric further from that corner would be spotted with the blood that soaks through the fabric. Since that fabric was also contaminated with faeces, there could very well have followed and infection, leading to reports such as these:
The Star, 12 October, 1888
"A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.
A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

Sheffield Evening Telegraph 12 October, 1888
"... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances."

Hampshire Advertiser, 13 October, 1888
"A report was current late last night that the police have good reasons to suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East End Infirmary. He was admitted since the commission of the last murder, and owing to his suspicious behaviour and other circumstances the attention of the authorities was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries relative to his actions before being admitted to the infirmary, and he is kept under constant and close surveillance."

There is also the possibility that he died from the infection and that the murders after that were by another hand.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

From Ripperologist #124

6 April 1886 Central Court Proceedings. Morris Phillips (30), Moss Woolf (16), and Jacob Levy (30), Stealing 14 lb. of meat from Hyman Sampson, the master of Phillips and Woolf.

Hyman Sampson stated he was a butcher of 35 Middlesex Street and that Phillips and Woolf were his servants, Phillips having worked for him about 3 months and Woolf for about 2 to 2½ years. He had spoken to the Police and on 10 March about 5.00am he went to the market. When cross-examined by Mr Black, Sampson stated he had discharged Woolf once and took him back again and that he had previously owned a butchers shop in ‘Goldstone Street’ (sic) for 19 years.

Cross-examined by Mr Geoghegan, he stated Levy was there before him and that he had not taken any of Sampson’s customers. Hyman says he had no animosity against Levy – he had met him out of business hours. It wasn’t the best meat at 6d a pound that he had some for 11d a pound. He goes on to note that the Jewish authorities will not give a man a license unless he has an excellent character. He denied saying that if Levy left his shop he would drop charges. He states he would not let him off for £10,000. It was noted in the court transcript that Levy received a good character.

The sentences passed were as follows:
Phillips - Not Guilty.
Woolf - Guilty recommended to mercy by the jury. 4 months’ hard labour
Levy - Guilty of receiving. 12 months’ hard labour.

As we read the report of this case, we were looking for a motivation for the theft, that possibly Jacob was in financial straits through trade being bad. However, this doesn’t seem likely at the time of his arrest, because he had in his pocket £32 10s 9d, a goodly sum by anyone’s standards in the 1880s. So why commit career suicide for 7s worth of meat? For, the effect of the court hearing did not just mean that Jacob has a prison record and will serve a year in jail. He can now no longer hold a trading license. That’s it – gone. For a man who knows no other career, it is suicide. The Jewish authorities will not give him a license, so how will he feed his family? At this moment in time, the family are possibly facing the workhouse.

Jacob’s sentence of 12 months was meant to be served in Holloway Prison, yet just seven weeks later he is found in an asylum - The Essex County Asylum.

Levy went from owning a flourishing business to having a prison record and being denied a trading license by Jewish authorities.

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

Jacob Levy lived on the corner of Middlesex St and Stoney Lane, the latter being a likely escape route for the Ripper, and only a street from the GSG. His brother, Isaac, lived in the building where the GSG was written and the apron piece deposited. Sampson's shop had been nearby.

Cheers, George

Cheers George.

Aye, it's interesting, but in the final analysis you have to believe that a man went 'round carving up women because he was convicted of a petty crime. It doesn't appear to flow. Man convicted of a petty crime directs his ire towards women, which includes taking organs and rendering one woman almost unrecognisable, and goes onto make the point: "do not convict me of a petty crime, otherwise I'll run 'round carving up women", by means of scrawling a barely intelligible message on a wall. That leap from wronged petty criminal to committing pretty much the most serious crime you can think of, is not supported by the supposed motive in my opinion.

In fairness, every theory hits a brick wall, which is a shame because something more concrete to look at would be in everyone's interests. It's a bit like the idea that the proximity of the lodging houses means something. It's very interesting, a nice piece of research, but it just lacks that final bit of something concrete to think: "aye, there really is something there".

I've posted this before. I live in a part of the country where much of working class vernacular hasn't been altered by the passage of time. We're a bit off the beaten track here, for example: people still drive around in a horse and cart, not many people, but it does happen.

'Not being blamed for nothing', remains a phrase in everyday use 'round these parts. It means: "you are being blamed because you have done something to deserve being blamed". The writing on the wall would make sense to people 'round here. Almost certainly authored by a non Jewish person and the subject of the author's ire, is 'the Jews'.

Just on the likely escape route, why Stoney Lane?

Is it due to a belief that this person must have ran around in the back streets in order to escape?

I could be wrong here, but I think the first search beyond Mitre Square was organised by DC Halse. When he heard of the murder, he ran to the square as opposed to organise a search from where he was. Let's say he's at the square at 2am or something like that. The WM may have had 20 minutes on him at that point, but that's based on my belief that the WM left the square when PC Harvey walked down Church Passage. I think it's reasonable to believe that the WM had a good idea that he would not be stopped and searched for a good while, meaning walking up Aldgate High Street, onto Whitechapel Road, and turning down Goulston Street; may not have been the disadvantage we automatically assume.

In fact, the WM may have felt that was his best option. Running 'round in the back streets, less likely to have other people around, would draw attention to himself; whereas walking in an area where there were a few more people about, before a search had begun; makes him another face in the crowd and that's not necessarily catching the attention of the police.

I reckon the significance of Goulston Street is that he was far enough away from the crime scene to stop and get himself together for the walk home, and close enough to the time that a search would begin to make it a good idea. The circumstances do not necessarily suggest that the WM would have felt it expedient to run 'round back streets on the way to Goulston Street. When the search began, and I believe he would have known broadly how long that would take based on his knowledge of his society, and that it wouldn't be within the ten minutes or so it took him to walk to Goulston Street; he may have been more inclined to keep away from main roads. Even then, I think you could put a case together to suggest that his better option was to keep to main roads where there were more people, and he may have viewed it that way.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, George, that's a surprising answer in that you are agreeing with me, except about the murderer's purpose in taking the apron piece in the first place.

There is evidence that the murderer wiped a bloody knife on the apron piece, but not of a bloody handprint on it.

That evidence is contradictory Dr Browns inquest testimony shows that

Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?
Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Blood spots are not consistent with either a knife or a hand being wiped on it!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

he had previously owned a butchers shop in ‘Goldstone Street’ (sic) ...

'Goulston' was pronounced by locals similarly to 'Goldstone'.

A policeman made the same mistake in a statement about the Eddowes murder.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI1,

Perhaps he cut himself and used it as a bandage to stem the flow of blood. Perhaps he reached a bolt hole (or his home), attended to his wound and then decided to deposit the apron and write the GSG as an indicator as to who he considered was to blame for his murderous rampage?

Cheers, George

Well, George, that's a surprising answer in that you are agreeing with me, except about the murderer's purpose in taking the apron piece in the first place.

There is evidence that the murderer wiped a bloody knife on the apron piece, but not of a bloody handprint on it.

[GBinOz]

I would be interested to hear an actual motive for cutting the apron in two, carrying it so far, and then discarding it, apparently about an hour after the murder, at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews.

Hi PI1,

Perhaps he cut himself and used it as a bandage to stem the flow of blood. Perhaps he reached a bolt hole (or his home), attended to his wound and then decided to deposit the apron and write the GSG as an indicator as to who he considered was to blame for his murderous rampage?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I think you're saying that we don't need to think about a motive given that he undertook mutilation, which the normal mind cannot compute, and it follows he may have written on a wall for reasons the normal mind cannot compute.

The problem there is that mutilation is common among serial killers.

It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?

Hi FM,

From Ripperologist #124

6 April 1886 Central Court Proceedings. Morris Phillips (30), Moss Woolf (16), and Jacob Levy (30), Stealing 14 lb. of meat from Hyman Sampson, the master of Phillips and Woolf.

Hyman Sampson stated he was a butcher of 35 Middlesex Street and that Phillips and Woolf were his servants, Phillips having worked for him about 3 months and Woolf for about 2 to 2½ years. He had spoken to the Police and on 10 March about 5.00am he went to the market. When cross-examined by Mr Black, Sampson stated he had discharged Woolf once and took him back again and that he had previously owned a butchers shop in ‘Goldstone Street’ (sic) for 19 years.

Cross-examined by Mr Geoghegan, he stated Levy was there before him and that he had not taken any of Sampson’s customers. Hyman says he had no animosity against Levy – he had met him out of business hours. It wasn’t the best meat at 6d a pound that he had some for 11d a pound. He goes on to note that the Jewish authorities will not give a man a license unless he has an excellent character. He denied saying that if Levy left his shop he would drop charges. He states he would not let him off for £10,000. It was noted in the court transcript that Levy received a good character.

The sentences passed were as follows:
Phillips - Not Guilty.
Woolf - Guilty recommended to mercy by the jury. 4 months’ hard labour
Levy - Guilty of receiving. 12 months’ hard labour.

As we read the report of this case, we were looking for a motivation for the theft, that possibly Jacob was in financial straits through trade being bad. However, this doesn’t seem likely at the time of his arrest, because he had in his pocket £32 10s 9d, a goodly sum by anyone’s standards in the 1880s. So why commit career suicide for 7s worth of meat? For, the effect of the court hearing did not just mean that Jacob has a prison record and will serve a year in jail. He can now no longer hold a trading license. That’s it – gone. For a man who knows no other career, it is suicide. The Jewish authorities will not give him a license, so how will he feed his family? At this moment in time, the family are possibly facing the workhouse.

Jacob’s sentence of 12 months was meant to be served in Holloway Prison, yet just seven weeks later he is found in an asylum - The Essex County Asylum.

Levy went from owning a flourishing business to having a prison record and being denied a trading license by Jewish authorities.

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

Jacob Levy lived on the corner of Middlesex St and Stoney Lane, the latter being a likely escape route for the Ripper, and only a street from the GSG. His brother, Isaac, lived in the building where the GSG was written and the apron piece deposited. Sampson's shop had been nearby.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?

I would be interested to hear an actual motive for cutting the apron in two, carrying it so far, and then discarding it, apparently about an hour after the murder, at the entrance to a building inhabited almost entirely by Jews.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The murderer wasted seconds nicking Eddowes' eyelids and cutting her apron in two.

What are the chances that he cut the apron for no reason, that Long's testimony about it is mistaken, that the graffito was already there, and that the murderer just happened to choose that doorway in which to drop the apron?

I think you're saying that we don't need to think about a motive given that he undertook mutilation, which the normal mind cannot compute, and it follows he may have written on a wall for reasons the normal mind cannot compute.

The problem there is that mutilation is common among serial killers.

It would be interesting to hear an actual motive for writing on a wall. What would he hope to achieve by doing that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Still, it would be interesting to hear why a serial killer would take the time to a write a message on a wall aimed at incriminating 'the Jews' when those seconds could be the difference between being alive and being dead.

The murderer wasted seconds nicking Eddowes' eyelids and cutting her apron in two.

What are the chances that he cut the apron for no reason, that Long's testimony about it is mistaken, that the graffito was already there, and that the murderer just happened to choose that doorway in which to drop the apron?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was not aware that I had made an admission, FM.

The one where you said: the murderer knew that the apron piece he took could be identified as Eddowes in post 522, PI.

If Long's testimony is correct, then the murderer must have gone to Wentworth Dwellings more than 40 minutes after leaving Mitre Square and for the express purpose of leaving the piece of apron there.

He was thereby risking his life anyway.

The alternatives are:

1) The WM went back out from wherever he was hiding and dropped the apron in that doorway at the time you suggest, but it wasn't connected to the writing. 'Difficult to understand the motive for that given a search of his home would have revealed other incriminating evidence: 'may as well have hung onto the apron.

2) As above except the WM deliberately went back out to incriminate 'the Jews'.

3) PC Long didn't see the apron first time 'round.

4) Unknown to the police, the WM was hemmed in somewhere around Mitre Square and he saw a window of opportunity to leave at some point that would marry with passing Goulston Street after PC Long passed first time 'round.

5) The WM didn't drop the apron there; the police did. The motive being an attempt to avoid a scare spreading beyond its already entrenched place.

I'll go with 3 and I'd lean towards 4 and 5 before 1 and 2. Just me.

Still, it would be interesting to hear why a serial killer would take the time to a write a message on a wall aimed at incriminating 'the Jews' when those seconds could be the difference between being alive and being dead. Why would it be so important for him to do that and what was he hoping to achieve that made it worthwhile for him?