JTR a "local" man? Arguments for and against

[Pilgrim]

If this murderer was an anti-semite, I would say he would most likely have been aware of the Great Synagogue whether he was non-local or not. Whereas a local suspect, Jewish or Gentile, would perhaps seem more likely to have been aware of the Jewish club. In my view that would be one reason why the proponents of the idea that the murderer was a local resident tend to mention the club in Duke Street first while omitting the somewhat more obvious presence of the Great Synagogue. It has happened before and on this thread it happened again.

[Mr Poster]

In the interests of thread purity I am setting up an anti-semite or not thread elsewhere.

p

[Jon Guy]

Time of the murder

Hello

Apologies if this has already been noted, but the time of the Chapman murder suggests someone local. The people knocking about Hanbury St at 05.00 am seem to be people going to work, finishing work or homeless.

[Jon Guy]

Goulston St

.. and of course, the apron found in Goulston St could be demonstrating the route taken by the retreating killer.

[caz]

Inspr Moore didn't say that those "sorts" were knocking about Whitechapel. Moore was talking about those people on whom suspicion had rested - in which case he may as well have added Portuguese sailors, pork butchers, slipper makers, members of Buffalo Bill's Circus and Liverpudlian cotton-merchants to the list.

Hi Sam,

Suspicion of being the Whitechapel Murderer would hardly have rested on anyone who was considered most unlikely to have frequented Whitechapel during the autumn of 1888.

All Inspector Moore said there was that the women led the killer to where they were murdered - he doesn't say that he believed the killer lacked local knowledge at all.

There's more to getting away with murder than simply arriving at the scene, MrP. The killer also needs to know the safest and quickest escape routes after he's committed his murders (or dumped his victim's apron).

If the women led their killer to the murder spot they surely didn’t pick the slowest, most scenic, copper-riddled route to get there. I should have thought the safest and quickest route for the women would have doubled up as the safest and quickest escape route for their killer - regardless of where his base happened to be.

What earthly reason would any outsider have for venturing into that dump during the holidays? We're talking about Whitechapel and its environs, not Christmas at Dingley Dell. And all those crowds (if they existed) to negotiate...

Ooh, I don’t know - if a killer wanted to find potential victims who would lead him safely and quickly to ideal murder spots with a minimum of fuss and no chance of any associates recognising him, and if he had more opportunity to ‘go missing’ at weekends or holidays, I would imagine ‘that dump’ would have suited an outsider well enough - or at least as well as an insider.

...There were clerks living in the Victoria Home...

...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.

Hi Ben,

I would certainly not argue that the killer ‘can’t be’ local - of course he could. But I thought the Victoria Home, where you believe your local Jack had a base, was not supposed to open its doors to the ‘vicious, semi-criminal’ element you say he would have had around him, turning a conveniently blind eye to his comings and goings, the state of his clothes or personal effects, such as a knife or a trophy.

What do you think compelled your local man to kill in the very heart of Spitalfields towards the middle of November, after kicking his heels for the whole of October? Your argument is that he would not have had the luxury, unlike an outsider, to find any complete strangers to murder any further afield, regardless of the increased police presence in the area. But if you think Jack chose to stop killing after Miller’s Court, for reasons of self-preservation, why did he kill at all on that occasion? More to the point, why there, and why that woman (especially if he knew her personally) if - as you insist - he would have been worried about the increased police presence? What was wrong with your local man’s legs, that made him physically unable to put a wee bit more distance between his known Victoria Home base and his latest victim, if he simply had to have another one at that time despite the extra coppers in the immediate vicinity?

How you can be so confident that a local man would have happily struck where Jack did while a non-local man would have run a mile is beyond me, considering you are basing it on just one more murder in the area following the increased heat on the streets due to the double event. Also, I would appreciate it if you could get it out of your head that when you insist X must be true and that nothing else can seriously be considered, it follows that those who question the logic of your arguments must believe that Y is true. If you insisted that the killer could not have been diabetic, and I asked you to explain why on earth not, it would not be an indication that I believed he was diabetic!

Before I go, I notice that nobody has commented on the headgear in the photos of Petticoat Lane and other East End scenes posted on the nearby East End Photos thread. Look at the second pic in post #8 and the pics in post #23 and then tell me that nobody would have been caught (on or off camera) wearing a top hat in the area.

(And Ben, that doesn't mean I believe Jack sported one! )

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Ooh, I don’t know - if a killer wanted to find potential victims who would lead him safely and quickly to ideal murder spots with a minimum of fuss and no chance of any associates recognising him

Then it would have been utter suicidal stupidity to keep commuting into the same tiny-radius, circumscribed, highly localized pocket of one particularly dismal quarter of the East End every single time and building up an irrational familiarity with it, rather than sampling different prozzie-palaces in Greater London and avoiding the chances of being recognised as a regular there.

But I thought the Victoria Home, where you believe your local Jack had a base, was not supposed to open its doors to the ‘vicious, semi-criminal’

Right you are, Caz.

The Victoria Home endorsed a "vetting" proceedure, wherein any local of bad or notorious character was not permitted to lodge there, but this applied to strangers. It didn't mean that regular lodgers were frisked every night, just that newcomers and strangers to the district were inquired about prior to admittence. Obviously, our killer needn't have been a known dodgy geezer before he signed up with the VH, or else he'd have been turned away.

What do you think compelled your local man to kill in the very heart of Spitalfields towards the middle of November, after kicking his heels for the whole of October?

I think he was concerned about police presence stepping up, prompting him to increase the interval of time between the double event and his next crime. I suspect also that, for the first time, several witnesses had clocked his mug at fairly close quarters, and he was anxious about being recognized. Before that date, this hadn't been such a problem; no witnesses at Buck's Row, and only a rear-view witness at Hanbury Street.

But if you think Jack chose to stop killing after Miller’s Court, for reasons of self-preservation, why did he kill at all on that occasion?

There are numerous possibilities here, and most of them apply to any type of suspect, local or otherwise. Firstly, we don't know that he did stop. Even if he did stop post-Kelly out if self-preservation, we don't know if that equated to a permanent cessation of his crimes. It could have been longish pause a la Rader and Ridgway. Or pursuant to the theory, often advanced, that Kelly and the killer were acquainted, the death of Kelly may have provided a catharsis of sorts in that the "catalyst" for the killings had now been eliminated. No, I'm not saying that's my favoured explanation, but it wouldn't be unusual for a serial killer to project their hatred of a specified individual onto their "stranger" victims.

What was wrong with your local man’s legs, that made him physically unable to put a wee bit more distance between his known Victoria Home base and his latest victim, if he simply had to have another one at that time despite the extra coppers in the immediate vicinity?

He probably reaosoned that an additional outdoor murder was no longer safe in light of the increased vigilante and police presence in the district. He could have done so further away from his bolt-hole, but would he have known about prostitutes living alone further afield? Probably not.

How you can be so confident that a local man would have happily struck where Jack did while a non-local man would have run a mile is beyond me

I'm not "so confident", Caz. I'm simply working from the basis of what we've learned about serial killers and their habtis.

Best regards,
Ben

[Pilgrim]

Marauding or Commuting Unknown Offenders.

The methods employed by David Canter are similar to those employed by the FBI in that they are both largely statistical in nature. The main difference is that Canter is continually updating his database of offender populations on which to base his theories [Egger, S. (1998). The killer among us: An examination of serial murder and its investigation.]. By statistical, I mean that known offender populations are studied, broad offender groups (known as typologies) are defined, and the crimes of an unknown offender compared to this group. This subsequently produces a list of characteristics likely to be possessed by the unknown offender by virtue of their similarity to the comparison (or known) offender group.

The origins of Investigative Psychology can be traced back to 1985, when David Canter was called to Scotland Yard to discuss the possibility of integrating investigation techniques with psychological concepts [Canter, D. (1995). Criminal shadows: Inside the mind of the serial killer.]. Canter was unsure whether this could be accomplished, but decided to apply some of the methods of environmental psychology to criminal investigation, most notably the Railway Rapist (John Duffy).

Canter has also developed a model of offender behaviour known as the circle theory, which developed directly from environmental psychology. Two models of offender behaviour known as the "marauder" and "commuter" hypothesis were developed from the circle theory. The marauder model assumes that an offender will "strike out" from their home base in the commission of their crimes, whereas the commuter model assumes that an offender will travel a distance from their home base before engaging in criminal activity. A basic graphical model of this hypothesis is shown in the diagram below.



The "Marauder" (above) and the "Commuter" (below) models of offender behaviour.



There is little available to tell the practitioner how to apply this model to an actual investigation. The original study that was done to develop the model was retrospective, that is, used solved cases where both the location of the offender’s home and crimes were known. This must bring the practical application of this model into question, as it would be practically impossible to know whether you were dealing with a marauder or a commuter with an unknown offender. The distances defined by the criminal range and home range are also problematic, as there is no clear relationship between the size or location of the criminal range and the distance it is from the offender’s home [Canter, D., & Larkin, P. (1993). The environmental range of serial rapists. Journal of environmental psychology, 13,, page 65].

Crime Library

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,

Suspicion of being the Whitechapel Murderer would hardly have rested on anyone who was considered most unlikely to have frequented Whitechapel during the autumn of 1888.

My point was merely to correct Mr Poster's reading of the Inspector Moore's list. Moore wasn't saying that Ripper Country was full of doctors, lawyers, politicians, members of the nobility etc - he was merely listing the range of people who at one time or another had fallen under suspicion. Of their geographic haunts Moore tells us naught, and he doesn't remotely imply that these "sorts" hung out around Whitechapel.

[Sam Flynn]

Canter, D., & Larkin, P., 1993

Daimler, G., 1892; Benz, K,. 1896; Ford, H., 1903; Porsche, F., & Hitler, A., 1933... etc

[Mr Poster]

You know the above post demonstrates all that is wrong with profiling.

A number of crimes occur that are though to be related.

A circle is drawn round them.

The.....the stunning and insightful conclusion is drawn that the killer may live within that circle.

or that he may live outside it.

No information being forthcoming on either or where.

And everyone is expected to stand back, in awe, applaud and run out and buy the latest book.

Its not funny. And what even unfunnier is that people actually swallow this crap.

That particular pill being sweetened no doubt by the cover picture of the buxom blonde tied to the chair wetting herself in fear (although the people who read this guff probably think its anticipation) as a shadowy meance approaches.

p

[perrymason]

What do you think compelled your local man to kill in the very heart of Spitalfields towards the middle of November, after kicking his heels for the whole of October? Your argument is that he would not have had the luxury, unlike an outsider, to find any complete strangers to murder any further afield, regardless of the increased police presence in the area. But if you think Jack chose to stop killing after Miller’s Court, for reasons of self-preservation, why did he kill at all on that occasion? More to the point, why there, and why that woman (especially if he knew her personally) if - as you insist - he would have been worried about the increased police presence?

Caz
X

Hiya Caz,

Thats a good question above, why indeed. Assuming he was dormant in October...although there is a Torso found during that month, and that the streets were then returning to some fragile normalcy just prior to Marys death. It would seem that his preferred place is simply North of Whitechapel High street, or when it becomes Aldgate..but he works above that line East or West. If the Canonicals are all his prior to Mary, he has only strayed once below Whitechapel High-Street, and I think there is lots of room to discount Stride as a legitimate Ripper victim.

I realize that serial killers are often portrayed as men who "paint themselves into corners" by continuing prowling the same few areas, and as I suggest above, he does clearly show a preference for a "boundary line", if Liz isnt his victim of course. But there would be serious difficulties continuing to work only there, and when the police ramped up after "The Double", I would think his dormancy is either related to his location...in that he left the East End already, his fear of increasing police numbers on the streets, which could justify a move indoors with Mary if he felt compelled to kill regardless, or, the objective for killing was complete, or he was dead.

It would seem only one of those would really point to the profile created for Jack the Ripper, the mad killer who cannot control his urges. The others suggest that the decision to kill in the East End was no longer his to make, in that he was gone, or dead. Or the "objectives" were already met, whatever they were.

Only a mad uncontrolled killer must keep killing, some serial killers kill...then dont for years, and then kill again, even differently. Maybe thats Chapmans story. But that suggests to me that their sense of satisfaction with each kill is sort of complete, in and of itself. Its not always something they need to do a lot of....or "must have more blood" kind of stuff in Ripper lore.

Of course, if the actual series of victims was more precise, like only the ones that had abdominal mutilations or lost an abdominal organ, then it would appear the killer could maybe wait until the following spring for the "right" opportunity to kill again.

He either forces the opportunity, by changing venues and continuing killing now indoors, or perhaps the killings up until Mary were enough for him to risk for the moment, or had met his objectives...again, whatever they were.

For example, I know of German doctor in East London in 1888 and 1889, who needed uteri for his experiments on rich socialites. It was alleged by their families that some died as a result of those "surgeries", rather than the Natural cause of death listed and signed to by said Doctor.

My best Caz.

[Supe]

Lars,

I think you miss the sheer fatuous beauty of the "Circle Theory." I mean, draw a circle around various crtime sites and then posit the perpetrator lives either within or without that circle--by golly that is nailing it down.

Reminds me of when I was working toward a PhD. Believe it or not, but there would actually be entire weeks when I was more interested in playing baseball or basketball or doing almost anything else than work on a thesis. Regardless, the gods of higher learning had to be propitiated and I would weekly have to see my advisor and report on my progress.

The gentleman in question was a fine scholar, but of the old school and that meant any sort of statistical legerdemain was quite mystifying. So I would often resort to spending half an hour or so before our meetings hastily rigging a few charts and data that would conclusively prove that the number of males and females in each of four separate Massachusetts Bay Colony settlements totalled 100 percent of the population! And 'learned prof' was suitably impressed.

So too, it would would seem, with the "Circle Theory." Very impressive and it is hard to argue that a killer lies either within or without the circle. And, if his abode actually lies upon the circle, well expand it or contract it slightly to suit your mood.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

The more discerning researcher draws ellipses

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Supe/SamF

Its quite appropriate really that the diagram of the first part ("in" the cirlce) looks like the fabled "chocolate starfish".

Given that th ewhole thing is a load of arse.

p

[caz]

Hi Chaps,

Yes, that's a real hoot, demonstrating that an offender can have his base among his crime scenes or anywhere at all away from them. Who'd have thunk it?

But isn't everyone, including the profilers, slightly missing the point here?

Assuming it's a case of "the farmer wants a wife", ie the offender wants a victim, then he is the one doing the looking.

Short of his base happening to be in an ideal location for sitting outside the front door with his fishing rod out and hooking one of the poor dabs making it their business to walk past at obligingly regular intervals, he was obliged to travel to, or wade around, a fish pond of finite dimensions where plenty of the right type of dab for his purposes could be hooked out and taken to the cleaners out of sight of the other pond dwellers and keepers.

All the circle represents in the ripper case is where the dabs he caught congregated, telling us something about them, and their vulnerability to a certain type of prey, but absolutely nothing about the fisherman, including where he happened to keep his fishing tackle, and what reasons (and there are many possibilities here) kept him coming back to fish the one pond or, if a permanent pond dweller himself, why he still kept fishing at all while the number of pond keepers kept increasing and everyone was looking for the nasty man with the big hook.

To quote Ben (well almost), it would have been utter suicidal stupidity to keep commuting into [or to keep fishing within!] the same tiny-radius, circumscribed, highly localized pocket of one particularly dismal quarter of the East End...

This 'utter suicidal stupidity' by definition applies pretty much equally to the fisherman who comes to the pond each time and the one who merely has to hop a lily pad or three. This is because it only really applies to the fishing activity itself, which is immutable and defined by when and where each dab was seen and hooked, when and where he was able to do the gutting and when he reached a safe distance from the scene afterwards.

The very idea of such activity could arguably be called suicidally stupid (the worst part of it for me being when he took Kate's pinny all the way to Goulston with him). But it would have been identical regardless of who the fisherman was or where his pad was in relation to the pond's edge. The journey to each dab was not a problem wherever he set out from, while the last part of his return journey from 'safe distance' to 'home safe' would have provided the only potential differences in suicidally stupid activity between a man with a pond pad and one who had to reach the pond's edge to feel really safe.

Even then, any appreciable difference in that last leg with knife and trophies would be amply compensated for if his mug was not going to be an everyday sight in the pond, to be recognised by potential witnesses, or if he had nothing to fear from house-to-house searches.

Love,

Caz
X