Was Jack like the Ipswich nude murderer?

[Cap'n Jack]

I think the most interesting aspect of this case is that the killer appears to gravitate towards something, or someone, he already knows... he is operating on familiar territory, he has his markers, and he has his well learnt opportunities and chances. He knows the local police, he is familiar to them, as they are to him.
This gives him a massive freedom to operate in what eventually becomes an exclusion zone, simply because he is already in the exclusion zone.
I think this a great lesson to be had.

[caz]

Hi Sam,

Enough for what? To conclude that one unidentified serial killer must have been operating right on top of a permanent place of residence - in 1888 Whitechapel?

No I don't think it is enough personally. But it isn't me who uses all sorts of additional arguments, including the one I mentioned and which you quoted back at me. In fact, I could have sworn it was a favourite of yours to argue that a more mobile Jack would undoubtedly have spread himself and his victims over a much larger area of London, if not beyond.

So it doesn't appear like it's enough for you either.

Love,

Caz
X

Edit: not passionate resistance to the 'idea' at all, Sam; merely passionate resistance to other posters' passionate resistance to any alternative scenarios that are not inconsistent with the case evidence and evidence from other serial murder cases.

[Sam Flynn]

PS Re your number 2, had DNA, CCTV and so on not been around, and played their part in nabbing the swine, his undoing could have been his 'familiar' face in an area where he was also living.

And this idea of that his face would have been "familiar", in a neighbourhood where several hundreds of people frequently occupied a single street (and there were many such streets in Whitechapel) is based on - what exactly?

[Sam Flynn]

So it doesn't appear like it's enough for you either.

I was typing an edit just as you were writing that, Caz. You might wish to go back, for - lo! - I have answered.

[perrymason]

Wright killed five women in six weeks - faster than Jack. But the fact that he killed five prostitutes in such a short space of time, and in the small area of the murders, suggests he could be comparable to Jack.

In fact, its entirely possible that Jack the Rippers streak started with Polly and ended with Kate, making a shorter kill period of 3 women in 5 weeks, and setting very specific, repetitive parameters for the kinds of acts he commits.

With larger death counts, any serial killers actual preferences or MO characteristics will change...due to the unique environments with each kill, the available "tools", and perhaps his understanding that in modern police work repetition is how they categorize serial killers at large.

Its clear in the Ipswich cases the killer at least knew about trace evidence, hair and fiber....so he left them nude in water.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

Edit: not passionate resistance to the 'idea' at all, Sam; merely passionate resistance to other posters' passionate resistance to any alternative scenarios that are not inconsistent with the case evidence and evidence from other serial murder cases.

But the alternative scenario of a non-local Ripper is not only inconsistent with the evidence, but with the topology and demographics of Late Victorian London. That's not "resistance" - it's a conclusion fully supported by the facts of the case. At their most relevant, those facts are:

1. Jack could easily have gone elsewhere in London to "rip", but did not;

2. he could easily have strayed further afield within the East End to "rip", but did not.

The most likely conclusions deriving from these facts are that Jack not only lived local to the scenes of his crimes, but he lived very close to them indeed. Add to that the fact that most offences are committed by local offenders, and the alternative scenarios become arguably less defensible than might otherwise be the case.

[Graham]

The most likely conclusions deriving from these facts are that Jack not only lived local to the scenes of his crimes, but he lived very close to them indeed. Add to that the fact that most offences are committed by local offenders, and the alternative scenarios become arguably less defensible than might otherwise be the case.

Certainly in less-mobile Victorian times, but cf: Yorkshire Ripper and Ted Bundy, who committed their murders over a wide area.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Certainly in less-mobile Victorian times, but cf: Yorkshire Ripper and Ted Bundy, who committed their murders over a wide area.

Indeed, Graham. Even there, however, the likes of Sutcliffe and Bundy are actually quite rare in the anals [sic] of serial killers - many, if not most, of whom remain "loyal" to their home base.

Crucially, both Sutcliffe and Bundy struck over wide geographical ranges, so it's clear that they could find the sorts of victims they were after in different places in the UK and USA. The same would have been true of a person who killed "unfortunates" in Victorian London, yet our favourite anti-hero stuck repeatedly to the same small milieu.

[Cap'n Jack]

'Crucially, both Sutcliffe and Bundy struck over wide geographical ranges...'

And crucially, Sam, Sutcliffe was a long distance lorry driver; and Bundy drove all over the States in his role as a political campaigner.

So what is your point?

[Sam Flynn]

'Crucially, both Sutcliffe and Bundy struck over wide geographical ranges...'

And crucially, Sam, Sutcliffe was a long distance lorry driver; and Bundy drove all over the States in his role as a political campaigner.

So what is your point?

Several, AP, but here are some directly relevant to the points you (and I) have raised:

1. That "commuting serial killers" are a comparative rarity;

2. Some serial killers who do "commute", e.g. Sutcliffe and Bundy, often have legitimate reasons/excuses to travel that extend beyond murder;

3. The geographical spread of victims shows that "commuting" killers succeed in finding targets wherever they choose;

4. "Commuting" killers seem to demonstrate no particular loyalty to a given location - indeed, they have struck in widely different locations wherever suitable victims might be found.

[Graham]

Perhaps it's the case that the Whitechapel Murderer was simply too poor to enable him to travel around a bit; or maybe too dim or too desperate to kill to realise that by restricting his activities to a relatively small area increased the possibilities of his being caught. That he was never caught is down to sheer luck (in my honest opinion). Sutcliffe and Bundy were both pinched courtesy of police work and bad luck (on their part, not the coppers').

These days, any self-respecting serial killer needs to be mobile.

Cheers,

Graham

[Cap'n Jack]

Sorry, Sam, I still do not quite grasp your nettle here.
What you call '"Commuting" killers ' did not exist prior to the means to commute them, so how can we use that as a measure?
Serial killers in the LVP were limited by the fact that they could not or would not commute.
I think I'm confused by your comparison.

[Sam Flynn]

What you call '"Commuting" killers ' did not exist prior to the means to commute them, so how can we use that as a measure?

Search me, AP - I'm just trying to point out the difficulties inherent in the idea of a "Whitechapel Murderer" who periodically wafted in from outside the district like a malevolent comet. I can't see how it lies easily with either the logistics or the evidence - whether we're talking about the facts of the case itself, the social conditions that prevailed at the time, nor indeed the behaviour of such killers ever since. Such considerations offer very little support for the idea of a "Jack the Tripper", I'm afraid. On the contrary, they point strongly in the direction of his being a locally-based killer.

[DarkPassenger]

I think it's pretty much certain they Jack was living and probably working within the Whitechapel area - the only people who dispute this are the sort who smugly claim that "we don't actually know anything," and like to question to obvious. It's pretty certain he was local to the area.

[Limehouse]

I am convinced that the Whitechapel killer was local to the area for several reasons. Firstly, it's pretty well obvious that he knew the locality well - he was able to leave the scene of a murder and disappear very quickly, suggesting that he had planned his escape route. That points to a killer living or working locally. Secondly, he was able to blend into the locality without raising alarm at a time when just about everyone was looking for somone who stood out. Thirdly, he was able to engage women sufficiently to secure their trust - which points to someone local and perhaps vaguely familiar to them. Finally, following on from comments that such killers tend to live and/or work locally, I think this is so because it is where they feel most comfortable, at home and confident enough to do what they do. I think JtR was comfortable in the east end. With reference to Sutcliffe, although he killede within a wide area, he still seemed at home in those locations he chose, mainly urban city centres in, or close to, red light areas. Places where he could blend in, make conversation, engage with and gain the trust of people just like him - working class.