JTR a "local" man? Arguments for and against

[Jon Guy]

Not unless carrying lukewarm human viscera was a normal practice in other parts of town, Jon

As long as he didn`t draw attention to himself,Sam.

The two guys stopped by the tec near Mitre Sq don`t appear to have been searched, they accounted for themselves.

In my opinion, someone who did what they did, would not be bothered, as we would, by transporting viscera on their person.

Possibly, been "mugged" seems as likely as been "searched", at that time of the morning.

[caz]

There are a few serial killers who target specific regions that they believe to be rich in ideal victims, but they tend to be outnumbered by those who take advantage of the easiest targets within their own residential orbit.

Hi Ben,

That's fine for the serial killer whose own residential orbit provides him with easy targets. But without knowing where the ripper resided in 1888 it's impossible to say that he would have been surrounded by Spitalfields unfortunates or the equivalent. You are dangerously close to a circular argument.

Experience and commonsense suggests that JTR belonged in the latter category. One thing we have learned - or should have learned - about the comparatively rare commuter serialists is that they try out different locations, usually tryng another one when the pressure hots up in their initially targetted region. They don't pick out a very small localized area, for example, and keep "commuting" there despite the increasing police presence after each murder, and despite the availability of plentiful and arguably better "target-rich" areas elsewhere.

How do you know that the ripper never went looking in different locations at any time? That said, I still find it amusing that you want a non-local ripper (and I have only ever suggested as a possibility someone with links and a familiarity with that part of the East End) to have pushed off out of it well before November 9th, knowing it would be 'suicidally' stupid to kill again in the vicinity, while allowing your local man the same degree of suicidal stupidity in addition to making him barely able to walk the few streets you claim would have taken Jack to fresh hunting fields with potential victims a-plenty.

When we do encounter a series of similar and unsolved crimes that are within as easy walking distance of eachother as they were in the Whitechapel series, it usually points towards the offender being resident in that area.

Hang on a mo - unsolved crimes? How would you know that this 'usually points' towards the offender being resident in the area? The fact that the offender was never caught or identified could point towards precisely the opposite scenario.

Embracing your fishpond analagy, then, wherein the fisherman is Jack and the ponds refer to target-rich localities, our "commuter" Jack is like a fisherman who continually visits a specifc small pond - the one that's always under the most scrutiny from an increasing supply of angling bailiffs - rather than trying different ponds that are equally fish-rich and where hardly any angling bailiffs visit.

That's a silly fisherman - and a rare one.

Okay then, here's a fresh analogy for you, since you keep missing the hole in your own 'silly man' argument.

Anyone who walks among a pride of lions and steals fresh meat from under their noses - just once - is a silly hunter. Twice or three times with the same pride is a very silly hunter indeed.

The degree of silliness is much the same, whether Mr. V. Silly tries it more than three times with the same pride because his legs won't take him to annoy another pride in another place, or because he figures that getting away with it this many times means this particular pride must spend most of its time sleeping and will never catch him.

Your argument is that the hunter would have been sillier to come into an area repeatedly to steal the lions' dinner and then make a run for it, than to stay in his own area where the pride was, doing the same thing repeatedly. I have to say that both scenarios strike me as being remarkably silly, and a hundred times sillier than just not teasing any more lions - anywhere.

Either way you have the very silly Jacky you repeatedly insist he would not have been.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Originally Posted by caz All the circle represents in the ripper case is where the dabs he caught congregated

Buck's Row? Hanbury Street? And on both occasions - on three occasions, if one includes Kelly - between the hours of 03:00 and 05:00 in the morning? These parameters aren't redolent of a "dabbler" picking the right areas, or times, in which to cast his net.

Er, Sam, by where the dabs congregated, I was referring to the picking-up points, where Jack could have expected to encounter suitable victims, rather than the actual scenes of attack. I thought that was clear from the context. I doubt the distances between pick-up and attack would have been great enough to affect the circle significantly and what it represents.

As for the Jewish aspect, the vast majority of the population of Whitechapel were Jewish at this time, with a few Irish and other ethnic groups living alongside them and the older population of dispossesed English. Statistically a local Jack is most likely going to be Jewish Jack...

...I would also suggest that the kind of mental damage Jack experienced, whether organic or psychological was also more prevalant in a deprived background than an affluent one. Jack like all dangerous criminals was a product of his society and an inevitable one at that, in many ways the exact person behind the murders is almost irrelevant, such a socially engendered 'psychosis' could have manifest through a great number of potential instruments.

Hi Vigilantee,

As others have pointed out, the 'vast majority' of the local population was not Jewish. So statistically, if Jack was a local man, the odds are he was not Jewish. But then, the odds are also very much against Jack going to the cops in 1888 to admit he was in Miller's Court on the night before Mary Kelly's body was found. The vast majority of serial killers do no such thing. So we'd be very silly indeed to rely totally on odds to get us closer to Jack.

The exact person behind the murders is certainly going to be irrelevant as far as you are concerned, if you have inadvertently eliminated one or more of the groups in which he was to be found.

Was he being a dangerous criminal when he wasn't attacking unfortunates? If he was behaving normally at other times (ie the vast majority of the time), any mental damage that caused him to murder unfortunates, but only when he was alone with them, must have been pretty easy for him to disguise when in company.

Once again I give everyone Dr Harold Shipman, who does queer things with statistics and the limits people put on the men who kill and keep dipping into the same killing fields for more of the same. It's often greed, or a very silly feeling that they are special or omnipotent, that leads to carelessness and capture. So part of the drug may be to operate under everyone's noses. The drug may not work any more if a killer is forced to change tack.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

But without knowing where the ripper resided in 1888 it's impossible to say that he would have been surrounded by Spitalfields unfortunates or the equivalent.

Of course we don't "know", but we can make a thoroughly educated guess based on the geography of the crimes, and past cases in which serials have been committed within a small circumscribed region. It invariably points towards a locally resident offender who takes advantage of what is readily available in the area rather than deciding upon a specific sort of "target" beforehand, and thinking "Now where might I find some of those". It's experience that we should be willing to learn from.

How do you know that the ripper never went looking in different locations at any time?

Well, the absence of any ripper-like murders elsewhere is a reasonable indicator. As I've mentined time and again, there were numerous other prostitute-rich locations in London that would have been ideal for the task, and which didn't involve trekking again and again into an increasingly police-patrolled pocket of Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

while allowing your local man the same degree of suicidal stupidity in addition to making him barely able to walk the few streets you claim would have taken Jack to fresh hunting fields with potential victims a-plenty

The obvious difference here is that the local offender didn't have any choice in the matter if he wanted to continue killing but wasn't familiar enough with, or couldn't get to, ripping pastures anew. This wouldn't have been a problem for a "commuter", who had the means to travel elsewhere when the police pressure increases, which is precisely why commuters vary ther locations when committing serial murder whereas "marauders" or locally-based offenders do not.

Hang on a mo - unsolved crimes?

I meant solved, of course.

Anyone who walks among a pride of lions and steals fresh meat from under their noses - just once - is a silly hunter. Twice or three times with the same pride is a very silly hunter indeed.

Yes! Especially if your meat-pincher had the means and the opportunity to get the heck out of there and steal meat from other prides, and always assuming he got a depraved kick out of stealing food from lions in the first place. Obviously it would be prudent to try out other prides who are oblivious to the possbility of theft, but if you're not in a position to vary your options like that, you're forced to make do with the initially-targetted lion den. You just have to improve your meat-stealing game, know the pen like the back of your paw, and hone your skills accordingly.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I accep your point about an over-dependence on odds and statistics but:

the odds are also very much against Jack going to the cops in 1888 to admit he was in Miller's Court on the night before Mary Kelly's body was found

Errr...nope.

The odds aren't against that at all because it is obviously situation specific. It depends whether or not the killer found himself in a situation that might have occasioned such action. The propensity of serial killers to come forward is dependent upon whether or not they found themselves in such a situation. If they never did, they're irrelevant to the study and the "vast majority" is rendered meaningless.

Regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

The most revealing feature of the crimes, as to whether "The Ripper" lived in that specific area or not, has to be his departures.

Its all well and good to say he wouldnt have been noticed amongst the other bloodied butchers and slaughterhouse men out at night, or that people did see him but thought nothing of him, ...but we dont know that anyone ever saw him leave a scene, or as he was making his way home. And he was often still in transit while the kills were discovered,if he didnt live far thats fine...but how could he not live far away from all the Canonicals...there is some distance between some sites.

I think only two conclusions are feasible.....either he knew the streets as a local resident himself, or he knew the streets due to his work, his own research, frequent visits to the area, or once lived there. There is very little possibility he was disadvantaged by any location he was led....because the end results are always the same. And there is slim to zero possibility that he was simply lucky each time.

Each kill adds more men looking for him, more vigilantee's, more surveillance, more sideways looks from everyone else out at night.

As to the area being the breeding ground for the type of women he seeks.....well those that believe in the Canon believe hell take them indoors, outdoors, middle-aged and homeless, or twenty something with a room....if he is that indiscriminate, he could have killed anywhere, it seems some believe he only seeks breathing females. So why always the same area?

Lacking funds....maybe. Or maybe he has lots of funds, enough to travel to Whitechapel regularly and rent a few rooms. Maybe even hire some local contract killers. Again though, Im not suggesting this is the type of man that would be responsible for all 5 Canonicals. Just the ones that are focussed kills.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

Again though, Im not suggesting this is the type of man that would be responsible for all 5 Canonicals.

I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to any of these murders, Mike - or many of the non-canonicals too, for that matter.

[Mrsperfect]

William Bury thought he wouldn't be hanged because he was 'special'

Regards

Eileen

Was he being a dangerous criminal when he wasn't attacking unfortunates? If he was behaving normally at other times (ie the vast majority of the time), any mental damage that caused him to murder unfortunates, but only when Once again I give everyone Dr Harold Shipman, who does queer things with statistics and the limits people put on the men who kill and keep dipping into the same killing fields for more of the same. It's often greed, or a very silly feeling that they are special or omnipotent, that leads to carelessness and capture. So part of the drug may be to operate under everyone's noses. The drug may not work any more if a killer is forced to change tack.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It invariably points towards a locally resident offender who takes advantage of what is readily available in the area rather than deciding upon a specific sort of "target" beforehand, and thinking "Now where might I find some of those". It's experience that we should be willing to learn from.

Hi Ben,

Sorry for the delay in responding!

Are you saying then, that an area with no ready supply of suitably vulnerable potential victims will not tend to produce any serial offenders? That men only tend to become serial offenders if they find themselves naturally surrounded by such a supply?

If not, I’m struggling to see how you think a budding serial killer is supposed to earn himself the definition if he doesn’t happen to be in the heart of an already victim-rich area, but is not permitted, under your ‘Unsolved Serial Murder For Dummies’ rules, to travel to one which is raining unfortunates, and to let himself get absolutely soaking wet.

As I've mentined time and again, there were numerous other prostitute-rich locations in London that would have been ideal for the task, and which didn't involve trekking again and again into an increasingly police-patrolled pocket of Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

Yes, and you completely blanked my point about serial killers who offend repeatedly and get away with it becoming fearless and believing they have special powers. If part of the drug was proving to himself that he could keep operating under the same people’s noses (even to the extent of turning up at the cop shop after his most shocking crime to date with a cocknbull story, expecting to get one over on the local constabulary ), then going anywhere else would not have been ‘ideal’ for him, regardless of whether he had the means to trek there or not, would it?

In fact, it may have had about as much appeal for our man as it evidently had for Harold Shipman to move to other patient-rich practices well before the increasingly hazardous-to-health nature of the one he was in began to be noticed: in short, no appeal at all. Playing God under the noses of the same limited population, time and time again, regardless of the steadily increasing risk of discovery, was evidently exactly what floated his rotten boat.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

No worries about the delay.

Are you saying then, that an area with no ready supply of suitably vulnerable potential victims will not tend to produce any serial offenders?

There will be suitably vulnerable potential victims in any area. You'll just find most serials being committed by "marauders" and locally-based offenders who take advantage of whatever type of "suitably vulnerable potential victim" is most readily available rather than dreaming up an ideal sort of "target" and then picking a venue for the "campaign". This would have been particularly true of the late Victorian period and the Whitechapel murders, since all were committed within walking distance of eachother. Sam Flynn made the excellent point recently that the advent of the "commuter" serial killer has become more of a possibilty with the arrival of private transport. Sutcliffe was able to travel further because of this, and yet his base was still central to his "criminal map", just as I contend JTR's was to his.

The notion that the majority of serial killers spend a great deal of effort conjuring up the ideal "victim" type, and then researching where they might be found and then commuting there (and only there) is unfortutely a by-product of poor suspect-based ripperology of the order that refuses to embrace what should have been learned from past cases, and before you ask, no, I don't include you in that catergory.

If part of the drug was proving to himself that he could keep operating under the same people’s noses then going anywhere else would not have been ‘ideal’ for him, regardless of whether he had the means to trek there or not, would it?

Nothing disasterously wrong with that hypothesis in and of itself, but again, experience paints a rather different picture, with the rarer "commuter" serial killers (i.e. invariably the ones with private transport) generally relocating to different pastures when they consider it prudent to do so. Many of them undoubtedly have a desire to out-fox the authorities, but rarely does that extend to self-imposed delusions of invincibility, which is why they take care to avoid detection.

Harold Shipman isn't a terribly apt comparison. Firstly, his murders weren't recognised as such when they were being committed, which wasn't remotely the case in 1888 Whitechapel where the reality of a brutal serial killer and mutilator stalking the streets was brought into sharp focus as they were happening. Secondly, Shipman did not commit his crimes in one small concentrated locality.

All the best,
Ben

[PepeLep]

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.

That's what I thought as well. The victim would show the escape route in reverse by leading the killer to a "safe" spot to do business.

This thread has been an interesting read. I'm no expert, but I enjoy reading around here. I did take a Ripper walking tour in the '90s when I spent some time in London.

[Elias]

Firstly, hi all, first post.

I've always been of the opinion that the killer was local. Not only did he display knowledge of the area, but also must have had time to get used to the local plod's routes, especially after the first few murders when police presence was greatly increased. I believe there were three pairs of policemen walking the area close to Mitre Square - I think he must've watched the police before hand, or at least had an idea where their beats went and had long it would take for them to return. Frances Cole's murderer was apparently rumbled, in what seems to have been an isolated attack, (if it wasn't Jack which I don't think it was) yet Jack managed to avoid detection by the police every time. The only time he appeared to be rumbled during the course of a murder was by Diemschutz. I think he was regularly using prostitutes around the east end, and knew areas he would be taken depending on where he chose his victim.

[caz]

There will be suitably vulnerable potential victims in any area...

Sutcliffe was able to travel further...

...Shipman did not commit his crimes in one small concentrated locality.

Hi Ben,

Again, apologies for the late response.

Arguably, though, there were many more highly suitable and vulnerable potential victims in the one small concentrated locality where Jack chose to operate ('chose' as in not having to operate at all if he was the type to be spooked by increasing numbers of bobbies and vigilance committee members etc) than in many of the other areas that were in comfortable walking distance.

Colin (Septic Blue) makes a terrific point elsewhere about these women being more in the category of vagrants and beggars than 'sex workers'. If Jack knew this area was notorious for 'em, from his familiarity with the streets (which I have never doubted he possessed), he would not necessarily have been willing or able to case other similar areas no matter how hot Spitalfields had become by early November, when he opted for yet another local operation.

I may be wrong, but didn't Sutcliffe have to travel to find his victims, regardless of the era, because he didn't live right in the middle of any of the red light districts he chose to prowl? What would he have done in 1888, if he was not prepared to get himself somehow to his nearest rich supply, which was my original point?

How would Druitt, for example, have gone about murdering and mutilating women at the time and getting away with it (given that Whitechapel had a 'Keep Out All Non-Local Serial Killers, by order of Ben' notice on it )? Would he have had to traipse around a different area for each kill, which could have been entirely unfamiliar to him beforehand, in order to fit in with your data concerning the known selection processes of other killers - only known because they got themselves caught?

You see, this only works with killers who got it wrong and got caught. You have no way of knowing that the successful ones didn't operate in a completely different way (eg creep in, crap on the locals and creep out again), which may account for that very success.

Shipman was a GP who preyed on the elderly within his own practice. How much more concentrated do you need to get? He was an educated man and yet he continued to tick off names on his patient list until there was no denying that something was very badly amiss. The local funeral parlour was one of the first places where alarm bells rang, due to the unusually large amount of business passing through its doors. Is that not a small and concentrated enough locality for you?? Had the arrogant git moved home and practices just a couple more times over the years, he could have kept the numbers in each locality down to well below "wtf is going on" levels and kept on killing until old age overtook him. But he was obviously too far gone to concern himself with the ever-increasing numbers of bodies requiring the services of the one funeral parlour.

Whoever killed Mary Kelly was evidently also too far gone to concern himself with where she was at the time, if his own circumstances could have put him there too. The fact that he was never caught makes it at least worth considering that it was his own circumstances that kept him out of the reach of the law.

Hi Elias,

I too think Jack was most probably a regular user of prostitutes, who had a good idea where he was likely to be taken depending on where he picked them up, or was picked up by them. I suspect his ruse was to let a potential victim, who may have approached him with her hand out for the price of "a bed" or a "bite to eat", believe that she had pulled his sympathy strings. I'm not sure the women would have been so easily conned by anyone who didn't look like they would usually have spared them a halfpenny piece - certainly not by the time Kate went willingly to Mitre Square, at any rate.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Just a question, if I may, Caz:
Just how common is it that serial killers who have a history of being regular users of prostitutes do NOT engage in sex with their victims? Off-hand examples, anybody?
I am not saying it does not happen, I am just being curious.

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

No worries about the late response.

Arguably, though, there were many more highly suitable and vulnerable potential victims in the one small concentrated locality where Jack chose to operate

I'd argue with that I'm afraid. Sam Flynn provided a useful map recently highlighting the prostitute hotspots in the East End and elsewhere in London. Jack's patch wasn't the ultimate prozzie mecca it is often envisaged to be.

If Jack knew this area was notorious for 'em, from his familiarity with the streets (which I have never doubted he possessed), he would not necessarily have been willing or able to case other similar areas no matter how hot Spitalfields had become by early November, when he opted for yet another local operation.

Yes, I agree, but the vast majority of those fitting this broad catergory would have been local or locally-based punters, as opposed to outsiders. Bear in mind that no outsider (i.e. someone who visited the area explicitly for sex with prostituts) had occasion to venture into that locality for that purpose. A chap from Mayfair, for example, had only to loiter near the periphery of the district - near St. Botolph's in Aldgate - for the prostitutes to come to them. No need to saunter the beggar-populated back alleys of (or even the main thoroughfares within) a locality advetised frequently as a dangerous vice-ridden district in the East End.

What would he have done in 1888, if he was not prepared to get himself somehow to his nearest rich supply, which was my original point?

I dunno - move closer to the district perhaps, or reconsider (or exapand) his choice of victim. Same with Druitt, no doubt. What they were both unlikely to have done is keep commuting into the same small circumscribed region again and again. Sutcliffe's criminal map was wider because he had private transport. His bas was still centrally localted in relation to the crime sites, just as I suggest was the case in 1888 Whitechapel; it was simply larger in the former case on account of private transport. Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of any hypothesis, we ought to bear in mind that actual experience from other serial cases strongly supports the case for a locally-based offender. When we're dealing with a closely clustered and easily walkable series of murders, the perpetrator is usually based within, and enjoys some sort of familiarity with, the district.

You see, this only works with killers who got it wrong and got caught.

What did they get wrong? Being local? No. That wasn't the reason for their capture, and as such, we're not entitled to deduce that there are lots of statistics-defying seriaists out there, and it's even more fallacious to conclude that "X and Y weren't caught because they were different, and they were different in the way I say they were different." Nah. Serial killers are often caught due to good fortune, and they evade capture for the same reason.

He was an educated man and yet he continued to tick off names on his patient list until there was no denying that something was very badly amiss.

But at the time Shipman was committing his murders, they would not have been recognisable as such. There wasn't immediate alert that a serial killer was on the prowl in the district, as there was in the panic-stricken East End. If Shipman had stabbed his elderly victims before fleeing, he was very unlikely to have commuted in for the purpose. He risked doing so precisely because police and vigilante personal weren't mounting up in his primary target area. In cases where murders continue in that primary (small) target area despite that increasing pressure, it invariably points towards a locally-based offender making the best of what limited options (travel, domestic etc) were available to him.

I'm not sure the women would have been so easily conned by anyone who didn't look like they would usually have spared them a halfpenny piece - certainly not by the time Kate went willingly to Mitre Square, at any rate.

Well, Kate's probable killer was hardly the picture of Victorian elegance, and yet presumably she allowed herself to be inveigled into the square. I don't believe for a moment that any more financial incentive than the local "norm" was required to bend them to his whim.

Best regards,
Ben