From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Tom_Wescott]

How is the book going Tom?

Commissioner Arif! Was just looking at your FB page again today. The Le Grand book? It's not going. Yet. Been working on non-Ripper stuff for the last few years. Thinking about doing revised editions of TBHM and RC first, but not sure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DJA]

Given the title of the thread (from Mitre Square to Goulston Street), why is so much discussion given to Jewish topics? Just because of one perceived word in the GSG. But what of the Ripper's travel from Mitre Square to Goulston Street? I personally don't think that occurred. I suspect he went somewhere else first and then reemerged with the apron and clean hands. But where?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

How is the book going Tom?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But what of the Ripper's travel from Mitre Square to Goulston Street? I personally don't think that occurred. I suspect he went somewhere else first and then reemerged with the apron and clean hands. But where?

I have been saying the same thing repeatedly.

Somewhere in Spitalfields and not far from Goulston Street.

[Tom_Wescott]

Given the title of the thread (from Mitre Square to Goulston Street), why is so much discussion given to Jewish topics? Just because of one perceived word in the GSG. But what of the Ripper's travel from Mitre Square to Goulston Street? I personally don't think that occurred. I suspect he went somewhere else first and then reemerged with the apron and clean hands. But where?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I never said the murderer was Jewish

I never said you did!

[Darryl Kenyon]

That's different from saying that the murderer had to be Jewish.

I never said the murderer was Jewish

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't see a difference between saying the murderer had to be Jewish and saying the murderer had to be a Gentile.

The Jews of the East End never said that the murderer had to be a gentile, but the police evidently understood that the murderer was a gentile.

It is only now, on account of what Anderson and Swanson wrote more than twenty years later, that people are saying that the police at the time believed the murderer to be a Jew.

They did not.

[Fiver]

That's different from saying that the murderer had to be Jewish.

I don't see a difference between saying the murderer had to be Jewish and saying the murderer had to be a Gentile.

[Aethelwulf]

It's a poor analogy in your view because you make assumptions that have not been verified. Your mind is partially made up to start with.
Your view doesn't work if the two are not related, and there's no proof they ever were.

Contrary to the results of your mind experiment I am open to the possibility of a coincidence, I just find it the less likely possibility, given the events that night.


Racial graffiti is everywhere, especially in downtown areas, on railway carriages, factory walls, public toilets. Residential buildings are not so much targeted today, one reason might be no-one knows who are resident, but they are often well lighted anyway, but lets not go down a rabbit-hole...
No-one knows if the Jewish residents were sufficiently literate to know what the graffiti said, and no-one knows when it first appeared.
The City police were the ones who went door-to-door throughout the tenement speaking to the residents, only they knew if the police had answers to those questions.

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).

There were some chalk messages before the GSG, one on a wall at Hanbury Street claiming it was the third murder, which would make sense with tabram, nicholls, chapman. There was also message, not long before Kelly but further away that threatened to kill another woman and this time he 'would receive her heart'. Obviously this was after the double event so could be a copycat but the word 'receive' sounds both creepy and may tally with what he was doing with the organs. Perhaps the ripper did like to communicate. If you like the idea of some of the letters being genuine, that may be the case.

Originally posted by Wiggins:

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The police investigated all sorts of people Jewish and Gentile, John Sanders , John Pizer , Tumblety , Druitt, Ostrog, Charles Ludwig to name a few . Not all of them where Jewish. Plus enquires were made at slaughter houses etc

That's different from saying that the murderer had to be Jewish.

[Darryl Kenyon]

As I stated before, it is possible that a Polish Jew could have been a serial killer and not been identified, but very unlikely.

But as you are now referring to the Whitechapel murders, it is obvious that the whole idea of the murderer being Jewish was based on prejudice, as in other notorious cases in other countries.

In such cases, it does not turn out that the pogromists were right about the identity or religious affiliation of the murderer.

As I wrote before, it is quite obvious that neither the suspect seen by Schwartz nor the one described by Lawende was a Polish Jew.

And it is also obvious that the murderer was playing the same game as the young men who marched down Hanbury Street declaring that the murderer had to be a Jew, a sentiment echoed by Anderson to his eternal shame.

The police investigated all sorts of people Jewish and Gentile, John Sanders , John Pizer , Tumblety , Druitt, Ostrog, Charles Ludwig to name a few . Not all of them where Jewish. Plus enquires were made at slaughter houses etc

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

None of the above proves that a Polish Jew could not be the killer.

As I stated before, it is possible that a Polish Jew could have been a serial killer and not been identified, but very unlikely.

But as you are now referring to the Whitechapel murders, it is obvious that the whole idea of the murderer being Jewish was based on prejudice, as in other notorious cases in other countries.

In such cases, it does not turn out that the pogromists were right about the identity or religious affiliation of the murderer.

As I wrote before, it is quite obvious that neither the suspect seen by Schwartz nor the one described by Lawende was a Polish Jew.

And it is also obvious that the murderer was playing the same game as the young men who marched down Hanbury Street declaring that the murderer had to be a Jew, a sentiment echoed by Anderson to his eternal shame.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I mentioned specifically Polish Jews because it is being alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I have pointed out differences between Jews and Gentiles in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century.

When I mentioned the fact that they were easy to distinguish, my comments were widely ridiculed, but there is plenty of evidence that what I asserted is correct.

The same goes for my comments about public displays of drunkenness and attacking women.

They were rarities among Jews.

Again, my comments have been ridiculed, but there is plenty of evidence to back them up.

Elamarna claimed that there was a high probability that the murderer was Jewish because a high percentage of the general population was Jewish.

That is an elementary mistake.

The propensity to violence among Jews was much lower than among gentiles and this was often noted at the time.

Even when I denied that a sailor suspect could be Jewish because there were no Jewish sailors, my comments were challenged by two posters who demanded to see evidence that there were no Jewish sailors.

Jews were unable even to find work in the docks owing to violence and intimidation.

Those are facts that were recorded at the time - not the politically-correct nonsense that says everyone looked the same, got drunk the same, beat women the same, and eviscerated women the same.

None of the above proves that a Polish Jew could not be the killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am asking you for an opinion why there couldn't be a Polish Jew serial killer

I mentioned specifically Polish Jews because it is being alleged that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I have pointed out differences between Jews and Gentiles in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century.

When I mentioned the fact that they were easy to distinguish, my comments were widely ridiculed, but there is plenty of evidence that what I asserted is correct.

The same goes for my comments about public displays of drunkenness and attacking women.

They were rarities among Jews.

Again, my comments have been ridiculed, but there is plenty of evidence to back them up.

Elamarna claimed that there was a high probability that the murderer was Jewish because a high percentage of the general population was Jewish.

That is an elementary mistake.

The propensity to violence among Jews was much lower than among gentiles and this was often noted at the time.

Even when I denied that a sailor suspect could be Jewish because there were no Jewish sailors, my comments were challenged by two posters who demanded to see evidence that there were no Jewish sailors.

Jews were unable even to find work in the docks owing to violence and intimidation.

Those are facts that were recorded at the time - not the politically-correct nonsense that says everyone looked the same, got drunk the same, beat women the same, and eviscerated women the same.

[Curious Cat]

DC Halse and PC Long both say they did not see the apron piece when passing by the doorway around the same time - though they also managed to miss each other too so the exact time each passed that spot will always be in dispute. At the inquest, DC Halse says he would not necessarily have seen it had it been there. This was before DC Halse went to the mortuary and noticed the apron piece was missing but after seeing the body in Mitre Square. Had a bloody piece of apron been there when he was he would most definitely have noticed it. However, DC Halse didn't actually know where the apron piece had been found.

When PC Long found it 35 minutes later he removed the apron piece from the scene, so DC Halse never saw the apron piece in situ when it was found. Only PC Long knew its exact position as no-one else saw it in situ either. DC Halse would not have known either way whether he would have seen it at 2:20am, which he concedes. But PC Long says he took the apron piece to Commercial Road police station. Did he mean Commercial Street? Or was it just reported as 'Road' rather than 'Street'? Regardless, this happened while DC Halse was at the mortuary discovering that Catherine Eddowes's apron had a piece missing. It's on his return to Mitre Square to look for the apron piece that he hears it's at Leman Street police station.

How does the apron piece move from Commercial Road/Street police station to Leman Street police station? Or is PC Long mistaking the station he was stationed at - Leman Street - as being called Commercial Road police station? He's completely new to the beat that night so not knowing the actual name of his new station* is maybe forgivable but this is 10 days later and no-one appears to correct him either.

If PC Long is confusing the name of the station he is stationed at on the night of the murder, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine he may have confused what was written on the wall.


* Is it known exactly when he was transferred from Whitehall to Whitechapel?