JTR a "local" man? Arguments for and against

[Sam Flynn]

A point not known by many and forgotten by some, MrP. Dreadful Dorset Street was literally a stone's throw from prosperous Bishopsgate.

True, and Ramallah isn't far from Jerusalem either. The point is the bit in between. To a prosperous "Bishopsgateian" (did the prosperous ones in fact live, or predominantly work, there?) Dorset Street et al may have seemed somewhat obscure enclaves, requiring the traveller to cross tracts of land riven by run-down and reputedly dangerous thoroughfares.

There is more than mere geographical separation to consider, I reckon, Stephen. As to geographical separation from prosperous Bishopsgate - wherefore Buck's Row or Berner Street?

[Mr Poster]

hi SamF

No offence but I think you are letting your imagination carry you away a bit. A man familiar with working in the area might not have let himself be pertubed so easily.

As to the quality of drinkingg establishments in the area.....I read it on victorianlondon.org but am willing to let th epoint slide until I eventually wander back over there and find the source.

Now....out of interest....how do square this mystical horror that formed such an impenetrable barrier with the fact that the residents werent surpirised to see all sorts down there?

I is genuinely curious. Because you can assert that this psychological barrier was insurmountable but until you get some proof I think I will stick with Maxwells contemporary opinion that all sorts were gadding about in Whitechapel and not letting themselves be scared away by Curtains of Vaguely Impending Malevolent Intent.

p

[Sam Flynn]

until you get some proof I think I will stick with Maxwells contemporary opinion that all sorts were gadding about in Whitechapel

Maxwell's contemporary opinion of what, precisely, MrP? Strictly speaking, Maxwell reports seeing a man wearing a plaid coat (or "dressed as a market porter", according to her police statement), whom she saw in daylight outside a pub during opening hours. Presumably the "men of all sorts seen with women" to which she refers were based on similar observations during daylight - unless Maxwell was taken to streetwalking in the small hours herself.

And, to minimise the danger of "kudzu", it might be sensible if we kept the question of how well-dressed Jack may or may not have been separate from the issue of whether he was a local or not. We might also bear in mind that definitions of sartorial elegance are somewhat relative anyway - which might explain how Maxwell's "market porter" morphed into Toad of Toad Hall within the space of a couple of days.

[Ben]

Hello Lars,

Why would a skanky local commoner be so worried about wiping shite off himslef or his knife?

Because he didn't want shite on himself, very obviously. Be very careful not to perpetuate the obvious fallacy that poor and working class is somehow tantamount to dirty and dishevelled. That clearly isn't the case, and I was at pains to illustrate this only a few posts ago. Additionally, if the killer only possessed one coat and limited cleaning facilities, he'd have even less incentive to sully his clothes unnecessarily.

Why would a skanky local be concerned about avoiding a few splatters of blood?

Because they wouldn't be very easy to explain if he was to encounter the coppers during a house-to-house search.

GH's description (correct or not: its irrelevant to this point) raises not a twitch of disbelief from the fuzz.

On the contrary, Hutchinson was discredited. This may have been one of the reasons why.

Maxwell: I should have noticed if the man had had a tall silk hat, but we are accustomed to see men of all sorts with women.

Well, as I just said:

There is really no reason to assume that Maxwell was specifiying class when she spoke of "all sorts". We know the East End was full of all sorts; Jewish tailors, Gentile tinkers, sailors, soldiers etc. Some have magically inferred from this that Maxwell was saying that lots of toffs came there, but anyone familiar with the evidence will see that no such inference is permitted by her comments.

There was never any indication that Lewis or Marshall's man was upper class or non-local. There were clerks living in the Victoria Home. The assumption that anyone who dresses respectably must be a wealthy, upper-class outsider is completely without foundation. One can wear a collar and tie, spuce himself up, and still be a corr-blimey local.

There is no evidence he was local.

What you mean is that there's no "proof" that the killer was local. You certainly don't mean to say that there's no "evidence" because that would run contrary to crime scene evidence (the fact that the killer headed East into the heart of the murder locale after Mitre Square), established historical precedent from numerous other serial cases, and the expert views of those with more experience of serial crime than any poster here will ever hope to possess. Unfortunately, the only people decrying "no evidence" that the killer was a local tend, in the main, to be the hobbyists, not the experts who know better from extenstive experience.

Coincidental that all the killings occurred when people had a reason to be in Whitechaple (drinking weekends, festivals, parades)? As opposed to beijng killed midweek by the local chap?

So rather than being one of the numerous serial offenders who live in the general vincinity of their crimes, who blend into the crowd, and don't elicit suspicion by drawing attention to themselves, the killer was actually a wealthy businessman from outside the district who swept in puma-like from the outside, primarily for bawdy entertainment at the "parades", but also to dispatch a few whores? Wow.

And as for the notion that the existence of "helpful locals" means that the killer can't be local because he'd be found out is so heavily at odds with what we've learned from other cases, than no further elaboration is needed. Same with the notion that he'd be found out if he lived in a doss house - houses that were popular with the "vicious, semi-criminal" element precisely because one could get away with naughtiness there. Nobody was going to investigate the activity of that random lodger 57 beds to the left.

All the best,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Ben,

Just a question: hasn't it been the general view that someone with blood traces on them in East End wouldn't really rasie that much fuzz - as long as he wasn't encountered in the immediate vicinity of the crime scenes - since there were so many slaughterhouses in the area?
The argument has been that the police would have great difficulty in linking such a person to any crime, since he could simply argue that the blood came from an animal and the police certainly didn't have any technical means to disprove it.

All the best

[Ben]

Indeed Glenn, and such stains would be much easier to explain away if you were local and shabby (or even a local butcher/slaughterer) than if you were Gentleman Jack sauntering in from the West End.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Ah yes, of course. Quite right.

All the best

[IchabodCrane]

Of special significance in assessing whether the ripper was a local man or not is in my opinion the night of the double event.

It seems the ripper wanted the public to remain under the impression that the ripper was a jew. So he chose the immediate vicinity of a jewish club to approach his first victim that night (Elizabeth Stride). But his urge to disembowel the victim went unsatisfied because of the arrival of Mr Diemschutz. He then unhesitatingly and hastily proceeded to the next Jewish club to accost his second victim.

Now even if a non-local man had picked the club in Berner Street beforehand to frame the Jewish community, how de we account for his familiarity with the location of a second Jewish club, which he certainly couldn't have planned to visit that night?

The conclusion is that if he was a non-local, then he was very likely a jew who was familiar with the Jewish clubs in Whitechapel, and knew that prostitutes would be soliciting customers in the vicinity of the clubs. If he was not a Jew however, then he almost certainly was a local, for otherwise why would he have been familiar with two Jewish clubs in Whitechapel?

[Septic Blue]

The following is admittedly, a redundancy; having been transposed (with minor adjustments) directly from the "Is it plausible that Druitt did it?" thread. I hate to be repetitious, but my post is better suited to this thread; especially in light of my lack of interest in Druitt's candidacy, which I have used merely as a sort conduit, for the points that I wish to make.

As to Druitt....I dont doubt his alibi is forthcoming. Im arguing that this notion that only scumbags were down there is nonsense. We KNOW it is from contemporary records. We KNOW it is from residents.

Part of it is caused by people (not necessarily you) seeking to distance themselves from the Epitome of Non-Suspects, Knights Gull. To show their non-susceptibility to guff.....they flee with fervency to the antithesis of the toff....which is the scumbag.

To copperfasten their new found credentials as non-toff-ists, they now seek to prove that no one except scumbags were ever down there. Which is patent nonsense.

This has been my perception too, for some considerable time. The "local scumbag theory" may have some rational merit, but I'll say the uncritical belief in it may seem to stand in need of some further explanation.

"Slumming", of various kinds, is a historical fact. And it is a fact that "The East End" was the perhaps most infamous slum area in Western Europe during the years leading up to these murders. A major reason would probably be the fact that London was the capital of the British Empire, which made its perceived fault lines, real and imaginary, stand out all the more clearly. The "slumming" phenomenon would of course tend to follow the same fault lines; it hardly matters if a few even darker spots might have been found some other way.

So, it is a historical fact that people of better means did visit the East End, and for a number of reasons. And I would say a general underlying idea, would be the perception, real and imaginary, of the East End as an "antipodean creature" - "synonymous with poverty, overcrowding, disease and criminality." (#162) If some people find it necessary to argue against this historical fact, I'll say it would seem to stand in need of some external explanation. The most obvious reason would perhaps be that they simply are defending "the local scumbag theory". But I would tend to agree that any too uncritical belief in that theory might be well explained along the lines suggested in the above quote. I would think Barrett, Cornwell, Knight et al may have something to answer for here.

Against my better judgment, I am allowing myself to be dragged into this discussion. Of course, my comments will be ignored or contested; the sun will rise tomorrow, and the world of Ripperology will be none the wiser. However, I am compelled to speak out !!!

I wish to join the procession begun by Mr Poster and Pilgrim, regarding the so-called "local scumbag theory". However, I think the "local commoner - for the sake of simplicity – theory" would be a more appropriate and more telling reference.

The world of Ripperology is quite clearly fed up with eccentric theories, and many students of the case have subconsciously allowed themselves to become insistent that simplicity is the only possible key to a practical solution:

__ The Whitechapel Murders most widely attributed to Jack the Ripper were UNDOUBTEDLY perpetrated by a commoner, who lived in the immediate vicinity of the killing fields – any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

__ The Goulston Street graffiti was UNDOUBTEDLY written before Eddowes's murderer arrived on the scene – again, any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

__ Montague John Druitt UNDOUBTEDLY avoided Whitechapel as if it were the plague; as any compulsion on his part to do otherwise has yet to be demonstrated – once again, any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

__ etc …

The pendulum has quite clearly begun to swing away from eccentric fantasy. But for some, it has swung too far. The result: Simplistic Fantasy !!!

While some students of the case have espoused simplicity for quite some time, others have seemingly climbed aboard the simplicity bandwagon quite recently, in what would appear to be some sort of eccentricity backlash. In so doing, they have begun to insist that the Emperor looks resplendent in his new clothes.

If in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ???

Please don't retort by pointing out the fact that Druitt could have easily found prostitutes of the lowest social and economic standings in places much closer to home: Greenwich, Rotherhithe, Bermondsey, Southwark and Lambeth. I am as aware of that fact as anyone who posts to these boards.***

Likewise; no one should bother to retort by pointing out the fact that Druitt could have easily found prostitutes of the lowest social and economic standings in places much closer to his chambers: Westminster, Soho, Seven Dials, Covent Garden, Drury Lane, Holborn, Saffron Hill, St. Sepulchre ("Smithfield"), Clerkenwell and St. Luke. Again; I am as aware of that fact as anyone who posts to these boards.***

***Yes Gareth, these appeals were in fact directed toward you and Ben. While you are both absolutely correct to point out the availability of prostitutes of the lowest social and economic standings, in various markets throughout London's metropolis, in 1888; I believe there may be another factor, which should be included in your assessments.

As I have indicated on other long-lost threads, my research has given me the distinct impression that London's East End did not have any semblance of a monopoly, where poverty, vice and criminal behaviour within the metropolis were concerned. This of course, is contrary to today's conventional wisdom, as well as that of 1888. Charles Booth, himself, was quite surprised by the amount of poverty that his research team uncovered in areas like Greenwich, Bermondsey, Southwark, Holborn and Clerkenwell. In fact, he eventually concluded that the Southwark Parishes of Christ Church and St. Saviour were the most impoverished in the whole of the metropolis.

Considerable wealth and abject poverty both tended to be concentrated in various enclaves throughout the four quarters (North, East, South, and West) of London's metropolis in 1888, with two notable exceptions: Certain parts of the West End, which were too large to be considered mere "enclaves", enjoyed considerable wealth; while nowhere in the East End was such wealth at all prevalent. The only characteristic of the East End, which truly differentiated it from the other quarters of the metropolis, was just that: An apparent lack of any enclaves of considerable wealth. The East End was a massive sea of blue collar society, having just slightly more than its fair share of enclaves of abject poverty, vice and criminal elements.

Three of these enclaves were found in the Civil Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields:

Great Pearl Street
- Great Pearl Street
- Little Pearl Street

Dorset Street
- Dorset Street
- Little Paternoster Row

Flower & Dean Street
- Flower & Dean Street (excepting its southwestern quarter)
- George Street (eastern side)
- Thrawl Street (eastern half)
- Wentworth Street (between George Street and Brick Lane)
- George Yard (northeastern quarter)

I am inclined to believe that two of them, namely Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street, were most unusual in that they were apparently home to an extraordinarily large concentration of a particular type of prostitute: The middle-age, alcoholic, totally destitute and completely vulnerable dolly-mop (amateur).

I have little doubt that had these murders continued indefinitely, the epicenter of their locations would have gradually moved into increasingly closer proximity to the epicenter of the two enclaves mentioned above, Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street; regardless of the location of the perpetrator's base. In other words: I am of the opinion that the distribution of murder sites, in this case, is mostly a function of the tightly clustered locations of the victims' residences.

Now that we are discussing the subject of geographic profiling:

"If the area covered by a series of crimes is circumscribed, then in the majority of cases the serial offender has a base of some sort within that area. Let me hasten to add that this is not true in all cases, and the proportion of offenders who live within this 'criminal range' varies considerably depending on many aspects of the crimes and locations. But as a rule of thumb there is at least a 50-50 chance that the offender lives within the area defined by a circle that joins the two furthest crimes. If the spread of the crime is great and the criminal thinks he may be recognized in a given location then the chance he lives within this circle increases. If the criminal is clearly targeting a particular type of criminal opportunity then the chance will decrease because it is the opportunity for the crime that determines where he will offend, rather than the location of his base. There is thus the real possibility that Jack came into the area because of the opportunities available to carry out his mission. But the distribution of the crimes around the small area, together with their timing, also offers the possibility that he had a base in the area." David Canter, Mapping Murder, p. 131.

Take a good long look at that, folks.

"If the criminal is clearly targeting a particular type of criminal opportunity then the chance (that the offender lives within the area) will decrease because it is the opportunity for the crime that determines where he will offend, rather than the location of his base."

That, along with my own deductive reasoning, has inclined me to believe that a relatively confined distribution of murder sites might indicate the likelihood of a perpetrator who commuted to a particular area, with which he had developed a certain degree of familiarity; having a sense of comfort with its immediate vicinity, but not the sort of comfort and familiarity with the broader surrounding area, that would be expected of a local resident.

That said; I am still of the opinion that the distribution of murder sites, in this case, is mostly a function of the tightly clustered locations of the victims' residences.

Please don't retort by asking the question: "Why would someone like Druitt have ever gone to the Whitechapel area, in the first place?" Compulsive killers, in many instances I'm sure, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, and kill whomever they want to kill. The presence of a Polish Jew (i.e., Aaron Kosminski) in Dorset Street, George Yard or Buck's Row would have raised as many eyebrows as that of Montague John Druitt. But if either of these suspects was in fact, a compulsive killer; so be it !!! They would have gone where their compulsions led them !!!

It is my considered opinion that neither of these suspects (Kosminski or Druitt) was our man. There is very little known basis for the suspicion of Druitt; while the suspicion of Kosminski, in my opinion, was clearly born of bigotry, senility, an egotistical compulsion to cover one's own ass, and perhaps outright dishonesty. Apart from that; suspects bore me !!! I honestly don’t care who he was !!! But, again; compulsive killers, in many instances I'm sure, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, and kill whomever they want to kill.

And once again; if in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ??? It is entirely possible that Druitt's Indian Curry, in this case, was the sort of dolly-mop that tended to migrate toward that part of London, in which four-penny common lodging houses were most prevalent: Christ Church Spitalfields; but more specifically, Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street.


Colin

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

Indeed Glenn, and such stains would be much easier to explain away if you were local and shabby (or even a local butcher/slaughterer) than if you were Gentleman Jack sauntering in from the West End.

Exactly. Which is why one wouldnt be so bothered as to go to any lengths to avoid them if one were shabby. Unlike our man who apparently did.

Now even if a non-local man had picked the club in Berner Street beforehand to frame the Jewish community, how de we account for his familiarity with the location of a second Jewish club, which he certainly couldn't have planned to visit that night?

How do you know he did head for a second Jewish club as opposed to it being coincidental?

As to Maxwells referring to "all sorts" we are now being asked to believe that she actually meant "all sorts" in relation to trades or religion.

We know that isnt true as she contextualises her statement referring to "silk high hats" indicating "class" not "trade" or "religion".

had she said she would have noticed a man with a bag of cats....I'd agree.

But she was, as is painfully obvious, referring to "class".

p

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Colin,

I just simply have to applaud you for a marvellous post.
Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in Druitt or any other suspect, but I think your points are well worth to ponder and they seem reasonable to me.

You are also absolutely right, I feel, about the poverty areas of London. Indeed, although Booth found places like Dorset Street to be so depraved that he coloured them in black, areas like Southwark (and especially areas closer to the docks) could even surpass East End in poverty and social decay.
I would think, that the poverty areas of East End in many ways have come to represent 'the worst areas of London' simply because of its notoriety in connection with the Whitechapel murders while other, maybe even worse districts or others that were just as bad, have been overlooked.

All the best

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho

As to what non-local non-scumbags could possibly be doing in Whitechapel, here is a little snippet:

I love to loiter about Whitehall,

But one of my friends is clamorous for beer; and, to avoid adulteration, we eschew the delusive main thoroughfare for a moment and strike into a maze of little, unsavoury back-streets, between Whitechapel Church and Goodman’s Fields. here is a beer-shop—a little, blinking, wall-eyed edifice, with red curtains in the window, and a bar squeezed up in one corner, as though it were ashamed of itself.

My experienced friend, when we have refreshed ourselves at this hostelry, brings us, by a short cut, into Union Street, and so into the broad Whitechapel-road. Here the kerbstone market I have alluded to, crosses the road itself, and stretches, in a straggling, limping sort of way, up to Whitechapel Workhouse. We come here upon another phase of Saturday-night life.

n our progress towards the Gate, however, we look in at a few more public-houses. here is a costermonger’s house, where the very truck and baskets are brought to the bar. Here is that famous hostelry, where is preserved an oil-painting, containing authentic portraits of three Whitechapel worthies, who once drank one hundred and one pots of beer at one sitting.

Gaslight and Daylight, by George Augustus Sala, 1859 - Chapter 23 - Down Whitechapel Way

Oddly enough................as late as 1894 one could apparently still view waxworks of "Matilda Turner" and Polly Nichols all dead and gutted and splashed with red paint.

p

[Varqm]

"If the criminal is clearly targeting a particular type of criminal opportunity then the chance (that the offender lives within the area) will decrease because it is the opportunity for the crime that determines where he will offend, rather than the location of his base."

Colin.

Yes but he also did not want to be caught.That's why the question why did
he not choose a number of other communities where his chosen target also abound after the increased police surveillance and the creation of the vigilante commitee and ordinary citizens all on the lookout for him. Despite
those conditions he still had some leeway I think but still it would have some effect on where he would kill next.You could say the killer himself could have gone to another killing ground but then he still would have to come back to Whitecapel/Spitalfields with the organs so it's kinda back to square one.I think too that he would have wanted to go back to his residence after a kill as fast as possible if not sooner.The weight goes in favor of a killer who had no choice because he lived there I think.
I also think Canter and Rossmo together have a 51-49 % of being right that the killer's residence was around the community where the killings took place.
As far as the kill spots being near main streets it could just have been the prostitutes choice or decision of not being in the main streets because of police harassment and not far from it because of potential customers/drunks
at least on Nichol's ,Chapman's and Eddowes's case.

[Varqm]

Maybe it is for another thread but did'nt the police's investigations quite clearly showed that they were looking for a local ? Kosminski,Andersson's and Swanson's suspect was a local.I think these also add to the Jtr was a local man argument.

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Varqm

Was Kosminskey a contemporary suspect (as in while the manhunt was ongoing)?

Or did he pop up later? Like so many.

There is much evidence that at the time.....there was no particular emphasis on local or not.

I dont think Kosminsky functions as some kind of confirmation that they were looking solely for a local man at all.

p