From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Fiver,

There is also this, which is very direct to the point (from Day 2 of the Inquest; found in The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888):

...

Mr. Crawford: The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr. Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.

Dr. Gordon Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that.

The Coroner: The body could not have been carried to where it was found? - Witness: Oh, no.

...

- Jeff

Also, if the argument is she was killed elsewhere, the cause of death was:

[Coroner] Can you tell us what was the cause of death? - The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.

So she was moved with her throat cut and there is no blood anywhere between HSG's temporary surgery and square. Slight as she was it would take considerable strength to carry her outside. Her head would have been lolling about and there would be a blood trail. If she was dragged, similar. At the inquest no bruises were reported on her head, which is extremely unlikely if she'd been dragged across the flagstones. It was said bruises on her hands and shins were unconnected to the crime.

[DJA]

Hey Dave,

I call unfair on the PM. There are others that are also interested in your theories.

Cheers, George

PM your 'phone number and I will call you

Thanks.

[GBinOz]

Happy to talk to you again.

Your PM is full

Hey Dave,

I call unfair on the PM. There are others that are also interested in your theories.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

DJA, I'm genuinely interested in hearing this idea of yours out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Happy to talk to you again.

Your PM is full

[JeffHamm]

Good thoughts. I would always defer to PC Long NOT having missed it. It was a new beat, and when a beat is new, you pay special attention to things. Particularly after he might have heard word on the street about Stride's murder. Question is, how long did the Ripper spend at his bolthole before leaving again to drop off the apron? Five minutes or thirty? I would say when you construct your scenario, give the Ripper five minutes at his bolthole and stop short five minutes before the discovery of the apron, and then try to figure the furthest away he could have traveled on foot. But not as the crow flies because he didn't fly. he had to travel roads and alleys. Frankly, I don't even know how a project like this would be attempted. You might drive yourself mad! But I would certainly enjoy seeing the results.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I was thinking of doing a series of "time at home", from 0 minutes (the lower limit), and then steps of 5 minutes up to the point he would have to be on the line between Mitre Square and Goulston Street (which, of course, is possible; he could have stopped part way, waited a while, then re-emerges and heads further away from Mitre Square to make it look like he is beyond that point).

While it is possible to map out all the roads, etc, and do the travel times based upon following road ways, that is an extremely complicated program to set up. And, given there are all sorts of passages and routes we do not know about (there's mention of how some properties left doors unlocked, so people in the know would use them as alley ways, etc), there would still be a fair bit of error. While calculating all the distances "as the crow flies" does mean we'll overestimate to some extent, at least we then know how things were calculated. In the end, even doing it by road ways, will have some error (JtR could run some portions, not others, may walk faster/slower than most, etc), so it is always an estimation. By being "conservative", and going as the crow flies, we keep the calculations simple, and in a way, we reduce the possibility (but never to zero), that we drew our border such that it excludes his true bolt hole location (presuming he had a bolt hole, of course).

It's not perfect, but nothing is, nor is this supposed to be! It's a guide, not a prophecy.

- Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Thanks. I am hoping to revisit this and try and plot out a series of "borders", with each border representing a different estimated amount of time lost because JtR remains indoors.

It's a bit of a tricky problem in some ways. I think we have a reasonable idea as to the likely time of leaving Mitre Square in the first place (around when PC Harvey patrols Church Passage seems like a good starting time). We know where he has to get to (Goulston Street).

But the amount of time he has to work with? Well, that's the tricky bit. If we go with PC Long didn't miss the apron, but rather it wasn't there, then that means JtR has to drop it off at some point after PC Long's patrol, but before his next one, and that provides a 35 minute window (apron found at 2:55, previous patrol 2:20).

Of course, if PC Long did miss it at 2:20, then JtR could have either left it in his initial flight, or he could still have gone somewhere and then re-emerged and dropped it before PC Long's 2:20 patrol.

Knowing me, I'll probably do all 3, as that will give us a good idea of how the assumptions influence the possibilities. In some ways, though, it would be "wisest" to go with the version where the apron is "dropped off" at 2:55 (I know that is impossible, but it represents the limit of possibilities), but I think it is still a good idea to check out more constrained versions too.

Not sure just when I'll get to this, though, but hopefully I will find the time in the not too distant future.

- Jeff

Good thoughts. I would always defer to PC Long NOT having missed it. It was a new beat, and when a beat is new, you pay special attention to things. Particularly after he might have heard word on the street about Stride's murder. Question is, how long did the Ripper spend at his bolthole before leaving again to drop off the apron? Five minutes or thirty? I would say when you construct your scenario, give the Ripper five minutes at his bolthole and stop short five minutes before the discovery of the apron, and then try to figure the furthest away he could have traveled on foot. But not as the crow flies because he didn't fly. he had to travel roads and alleys. Frankly, I don't even know how a project like this would be attempted. You might drive yourself mad! But I would certainly enjoy seeing the results.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

I applaud your research regarding the Ripper's bolthole. It might be more useful if we could figure out how many minutes he might have had available to him and then subtract from there to tighten the radius. I agree he probably did not move in the direction of Berner Street until after all evidence was off his person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Thanks. I am hoping to revisit this and try and plot out a series of "borders", with each border representing a different estimated amount of time lost because JtR remains indoors.

It's a bit of a tricky problem in some ways. I think we have a reasonable idea as to the likely time of leaving Mitre Square in the first place (around when PC Harvey patrols Church Passage seems like a good starting time). We know where he has to get to (Goulston Street).

But the amount of time he has to work with? Well, that's the tricky bit. If we go with PC Long didn't miss the apron, but rather it wasn't there, then that means JtR has to drop it off at some point after PC Long's patrol, but before his next one, and that provides a 35 minute window (apron found at 2:55, previous patrol 2:20).

Of course, if PC Long did miss it at 2:20, then JtR could have either left it in his initial flight, or he could still have gone somewhere and then re-emerged and dropped it before PC Long's 2:20 patrol.

Knowing me, I'll probably do all 3, as that will give us a good idea of how the assumptions influence the possibilities. In some ways, though, it would be "wisest" to go with the version where the apron is "dropped off" at 2:55 (I know that is impossible, but it represents the limit of possibilities), but I think it is still a good idea to check out more constrained versions too.

Not sure just when I'll get to this, though, but hopefully I will find the time in the not too distant future.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

All of them agree with him that Eddowes was murdered at the site her body was found.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased.

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

Hi Fiver,

There is also this, which is very direct to the point (from Day 2 of the Inquest; found in The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888):

...

Mr. Crawford: The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr. Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.

Dr. Gordon Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that.

The Coroner: The body could not have been carried to where it was found? - Witness: Oh, no.

...

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Yet not one medical officer at the Inquest agrees with you.

All of them agree with him that Eddowes was murdered at the site her body was found.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased.

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yet not one medical officer at the Inquest agrees with you.

DJA, I'm genuinely interested in hearing this idea of yours out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.
OK, thanks for that explanation.
I'm in the awkward position of believing in your conclusion (that he went somewhere else before returning to the streets to drop the apron), it's just that I wouldn't have picked that sentence to support that conclusion.

Hi Wickerman,

I actually neither believe nor disbelieve he went somewhere else, though I lean towards he dropped it while leaving the scene. I came across the bit in the Times while looking for the information about the stake out, and while reading that issue I noted how this section struck me as describing two scenerios. It's not official information, as no source is given, but it struck me that maybe the "left and came back" idea was being floated at the time.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

The difference is I am prepared to consider all the options, to acknowledge the issues with each.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The problem is that you cannot accept that a subjective phrase is open to a great deal of interpretation.
For you there is only one possible interpretation, the one you prefer.

But the one you prefer enables you to keep Anderson's and Swanson's Polish Jew in the dock.

[Elamarna]

It is unfortunate that you cannot see that to interpret a very short time to mean as long as seven months - of round the clock surveillance - in order to explain why someone who was put away after a very short time was not actually put away until nearly seven months later would generally be viewed as fitting the evidence to the suspect.

The problem is that you cannot accept that a subjective phrase is open to a great deal of interpretation.
For you there is only one possible interpretation, the one you prefer.

[Wickerman]

...It was a poor analogy and what you've added hasn't improved your idea. Most likely no one is going to be bothered about racial graffiti on a bus or toilets as there is no sense of community about those places. A wall in a stairwell going into a residential building is different. Perhaps things are different 'downtown' (whatever that means).

[/QUOTE] Why is it different because it is in a stairwell?
If it bothers you - it bothers you, regardless where you see it.

Coincidentally, I saw an interview of two migrants yesterday, the second one Khalid came from Syria, his experience demonstrates what I was saying, that these people have experienced far worse so a little bit of racist scribble isn't going to bother him.

https://youtu.be/dGiNpkZKudM

Around 7.18 in this video the second migrant is asked about racist comments, he tells us that when he left Syria he went to Lebanon to a migrant camp, the locals objected and set the camp on fire, they wanted migrants gone, or dead.
Here in the UK when he faces racism he smiles, it's nothing more than like 'sticks & tones'. What was meant was that old rhyme "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".
Which is precisely what I was saying, these foreigners (G.S. Jews) have put up with far worse than some infantile scribble, that doesn't really say anything abusive anyway. So, just ignore it, which is what I believe they did.
'Sheltered' white folk might think it should upset any Jews, but in the real world it means nothing. Warren & Arnold were the same, they overreacted in my view.