JTR a "local" man? Arguments for and against

[miss marple]

local man

The whores were still soliciting on the streets even though there was panic about the ripper.Serial killing of whores never seemed to stop them whether its Jack or Sutcliffe or the more recent Ipswich killings.
So in the mind of say, a street woman of 1888, what is she most scared of ? A homicidal maniac? A crazy foreigner welding a knife? A posh doctor with a black bag? Any one of the cliches published by the press. A stranger? So who would she feel more reassured by, a familiar face, a local working man, someone she has seen around the streets, who is not threatening or violent. A quiet man.
The chances are that Jack was local, because he fitted in, he aroused no suspicion He did not have a history of violence or welding a knife.He did not draw attention to himself, the women did not feel threatened by him. He prepared for a kill, soft soled shoes, sharp knieves, he knew the various allys and hidden places were the women took clients. When he found his victim, he struck quickly, did what he had to do efficently, and disappeared silently down the streets and allys he knew. In the case of Stride, I believe he was interupted, but he had to finish what he started, so he takes a risk, but for safety's sake heads to the city rather than Spitalfields, probably thinking police action will be focussed on Dutfield's yard. Having satisfied fully his desire to mutilate his second victim of the nighr, he heads back home to the anonimity and safety of Spitalfields/
Thats why I think he was local/
Also the throat cutting of Stride and Eddows was very similar in execution.
He operated well within his comfort zone.

[KatBradshaw]

I certainly believe that the Ripper had a good local knowledge so either lived or worked in the area or both. A lot has been made of different points of views on the fact that being local makes you more invisible. I certainly think that that is true. Also I think that Jack must have had a good knowledge of where to run to or hide and it is likely that he didn't live to far. I find the idea that the Ripper lived in the Batty Street area interesting. Certainly it is possible to find plenty of places he could have lived. The profiles all seem to suggest a local man as well.
In the case of other killers such as Bundy and Sutcliffe and the Ipswich killer their area of killing was much wider due to the ability to use a car to move around.

[Nemesis Legion]

thinking aloud

I've read all the posts in this thread and I gotta say good point for ol' Wacky Jacky being a traveler as well as been a local living within the killzone.

I am new here so I'll just add my own 2 farthings ... get it farthings and not cents, okay I'll stop now

While I still hold on to my option that the 1888 Whitechapel murderer known to us by the flashy name Jack the Ripper (or Jack el Destripador for those in Spanish) where performed by a local who worked at some sort of slaughterhouse in the area (see my thread for more - plugging my own thread FTW!). This theory makes the most sense to me and I also hold the theory that, these women might have been women he had been with before or at the very least have sex with before he killed them. A serial killer with no sexual motivation is like an action movie with no explosion - it’s pretty rare and the fact he killed only adult woman between the ages of 39-49 (I can't recall the exact ages right now - sorry) makes the point clear (to me at least) he had a love-hate relationship with his mother and felt that these woman were somehow the same (by age and or looseness of moral character). Note that no children or men or anyone else turn up like this just the same types of woman around the same age…

OKAY! That was wayyy off topic, but back to the topic at hand. Now I have some points to make on this topic forgive me if it’s out of order and lacks direction – I am thinking aloud here…

Something that is not brought up is the fact that 1888 Whitechapel seems to be a hot bed for foul play especially after the first few Ripper murders. We know that the (badly named) Torso Murder dropped off a bodies in and around Whitechapel (one was even found in October) and it is notably the Mary J. Kelly’s and Miss Stride’s murders might not have been done by our ol’ boy. So either we gotta say that living in 1888 Whitechapel makes you wanna kill people (lead in the water?) or that at least a few of these rouges lived elsewhere. So which is harder to believe A-Theses men came to Whitechapel for this or B-They all live in the same area. How come no other neighborhoods had these “types” of killings was it that the first few Jacky murders gave other wannabe murderers free rein over Whitechapel and only a maximum police presence on the streets as well as social changes turned it around. Did the press have anything to with fanning the flames making other killers want go to Whitechapel, sort of like moths to a flame?

I guess I the point I am trying to make is - if Jack was a local he had had no reason to leave White chapel it was his lair he own it (in his mind) and if Jack was an outsider then after the media and gossip making him into bogyman of the London fog why would he want to leave and go to a different area, in Whitechapel he had become a living legend.

Question: was another Jack the Ripper type crime done anywhere in the world within 40 years or so of 1888? The point is often made that this Whitechapel murderer moved on after 1888/9 to new killing grounds, but if he did and then kept on killing ... well that makes a strong point for a commuter-killer…

(Sorry for the haphazard post )

[Ben]

Hi Nemesis, and welcome.

I agree with many of your points, but bear in mind that there's no evidence that any of the so-called torso victims were actually killed in the East End. They could have been dumped there in the hope that they'd be attributed to the "original" Whitechapel murderer.

Cheers,
Ben

[Nemesis Legion]

Thanks Ben and I agree 100% - I have my own theories on that one too (I'll save that for another thread). I was just trying to think outside of the box in a way I guess.

[Blackkat]

Actually yes there were killlings surrounding 1888 - a couple as far back as the 1860's and up until the 1890's - across the continents - and many similarities to the other whitechapel victims. He could have been one of the first "traveling seriel killers"

[Ms. Fade]

hi ho

"London was an extremely hospitable environment for the practice of prostitution. It's size provided anonymity, protection from police harassment, and a constant supply of customers. The police were generally more concerned with prostitution in the West End since "it was [there] more likely to come to the notice of respectable persons, press reporters, and foreigners." For most of the 1880s, East End prostitutes were left to ply their trade in relative peace. "

E.Trudgill, "Prostitution and Paterfamilias," in The Victorian City, 2:701.

Now if thats not a good reason for a non-local to go down Whitechapel for a bit of tail.....I do not know what is.

p

Absolutely. And it WAS fairly common practice for 19th century middle and upper class young men wishing to 'sow their wild oats' and be rebellious to go 'slumming it' in the East End - they knew that if they got themselves in trouble, their social status would protect them to a certain extent.

However, my personal opinion is that JtR had to be a local. Even though the local population would have been used to seeing 'all sorts', and would have been made up of 'all sorts' (remember, the East End was, and still is, a very cosmopolitan and multicultural area, being right by the docks - most immigrants would have arrived at the Port of London, and most of them would not have moved very far from there), a local man would have been unnoticed and unremarked upon, and would have known the back streets and alleys well.

Ms.F

[miss marple]

I think the number of upperclass young men slumming it is rather exergerated. It was on the line of visiting music halls in the main streets in parties not seeking dirty old alcoholics down unknown backstreets for a quick fumble.
The class divide was massive, the poor were the 'great unwashed' east end women were untouchable , regarded as filthy, dirty and disease ridden. There were estimated over 60,000,000 prostitutes in London. Beautiful well dressed women who paraded the West End theatres and discreet west end brothals, discretion guaranteed, every type of vice available
Every London park was filled with prostitutes, at night many fresh young girls up from the country. Going up west was where young men had their fun. Probably introduced d into a decent brothel by a more experienced clubman.
People who dont know much about the history of London seem to be obsessed with the idea that the east end was a fun place to have a night out. It was'n t. It was violent ,dangerous, and filthy.And probably the worst place in London to pick up a tart. You would not walk into the worst housing estate in London for a fun night out.
Miss Marple

[Ms. Fade]

I think the number of upperclass young men slumming it is rather exergerated. It was on the line of visiting music halls in the main streets in parties not seeking dirty old alcoholics down unknown backstreets for a quick fumble.
The class divide was massive, east end women were untouchable , regarded as filthy, dirty and disease ridden. There were estimated over 60,000,000 prostitutes in London. Beautiful well dressed women who paraded the West End theatres and discreet west end brothals, discretion guaranteed, every type of vice available
Every London park was filled with prostitutes, at night many fresh young girls up from the country. Going up west was where young men had their fun. Probably introduced d into a decent brothel by a more experienced clubman.
People who dont know much about the history of London seem to be obsessed with the idea that the east end was a fun place to have a night out. It was'n t. It was violent ,dangerous, and filthy.And probably the worst place in London to pick up a tart. You would not walk into the worst housing estate in London for a fun night out.
Miss Marple

Do you really mean 60,000,000 prostitutes or is that a typo?

And did you actually read my post? I said it was FAIRLY common for rebellious young rips to go 'slumming it' (in fact, it still is!), not that it happened all the time. I agree with you that the majority of upper and middle class young men had their fun 'Up West', and that the East End music halls etc were also popular with some of the 'chattering classes'. However, the class divide was not as sharp as you make out though - parts of the West End (such as the notorious rookery of St Giles) were extremely violent and poverty stricken, and existed cheek by jowl with the more exclusive and wealthy areas right into the twentieth century.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a historian, and a Londoner born and bred; the history of London (particularly the East End, where my ancestors lived from the mid 19th century until the 1920s) has been a particular interest of mine for a long time - hence my presence on these boards. I hope you don't think I'm jumping down your throat, but I just get annoyed when people make assumptions!

Ms.F

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Local. Would explain how he could evade the police so easily (other than having a lot of luck on his side) and seemingly know the area so well.

[caz]

Do you really mean 60,000,000 prostitutes or is that a typo?

And did you actually read my post? I said it was FAIRLY common for rebellious young rips to go 'slumming it' (in fact, it still is!), not that it happened all the time. I agree with you that the majority of upper and middle class young men had their fun 'Up West', and that the East End music halls etc were also popular with some of the 'chattering classes'. However, the class divide was not as sharp as you make out though - parts of the West End (such as the notorious rookery of St Giles) were extremely violent and poverty stricken, and existed cheek by jowl with the more exclusive and wealthy areas right into the twentieth century.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a historian, and a Londoner born and bred; the history of London (particularly the East End, where my ancestors lived from the mid 19th century until the 1920s) has been a particular interest of mine for a long time - hence my presence on these boards. I hope you don't think I'm jumping down your throat, but I just get annoyed when people make assumptions!

Ms.F

Well said, Ms.F.

Jack was not a 'normal' man seeking 'normal' thrills, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, and there is plenty of evidence - if one looks below the surface - that certain 'respectable' men in the LVP liked nothing better than to get down and really dirty - in every sense - with women who were experienced in the most menial physical work and who understood a man's animal instincts and were not the slightest bit squeamish or offended by him wanting to follow them. Didn't cost 'em much either, so they could afford to indulge more often than men who liked their women more wholesome.

Love,

Caz
X

[miss marple]

Hi Mrs FADE,
60,000 is not a typo. In fact if anything it is an under estimate, There were police estimates of 100,000 or more in the 1840s. A working class girl had few options, service, factory' sweatshop or marriage or starvation. Prostitution must have seemed a better option. And if she got sacked from being in service, with no reference and or possibly pregnant what else was she supposed to do. Then there were part time pros or occasionals like our girls. Read Mayhew, its all in there.Class divide was rigid.
Victorian men who fascinated by working class women wanted to raise them up to their level. The pre raphaelite painters had models, wives and mistresses from the working class, but they were stunningly beautiful women, who became middle class by the assiociation. There were not degraded wetches from the east end
Arthur Mumby a middle class man was fascinated by the physical strength and power of hard working working class women, he photographed them and fell in love with a very respectable hard working domestic servant Hannah Culliwick?? She was a very striking looking woman. He eventually married her but it did not work out as she could not adjust be being idle and middle class. She was a hard worker and she was sent off to live in the country/
The east end was the byword for the lowest form of working class life, there were so many subtle layers to the class system.
Miss Marple

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mrs FADE, 60,000 is not a typo.

Hi MissM. You had in fact originally written 60,000,000 - which might have been the total number of prostitutes in the Western World at the time, but not the number of prostitutes in London

[miss marple]

Thanks Gareth, I m bad with numbers, The estimates were between 60 and a hundred thousand. Miss M

[Scorpio]

Can the Ripperologists tell me exactly what " Local " means. A quarter of a mile?, a half ?, and based on what statistics ?. Why dont we try and talk the language of science here.