Where did the Ripper likely live?

[Lechmere]

Kelly and Nichols were both killed on Friday morning - what would commonly be called late on Thursday night - so not the weekend. Also for most people Saturday was a normal working day.

[Sister Hyde]

Had the murderer been local, the opportunity or drive to commit a murder in the week would have been overwhelming. Quite simply he never did - probably because he wasn't there.

J.A.M.

What if he worked all simply? Back then the shift times were quite different too

[James A Muir]

Out of Town

Having looked at maps of the Whitechapel area, I can't see that there are 'a maze of alleyways' in the area. The layout is fairly uniform in it's layout. That is apart from a small area to the top of Middlesex St.

As to local or not I expect the murderer travelled in from outside Whitechapel but had a good knowledge of the area. The reason for this theory is that all the murders occurred over a weekend period. Had the murderer been local, the opportunity or drive to commit a murder in the week would have been overwhelming. Quite simply he never did - probably because he wasn't there.

J.A.M.

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood Mac:

Indeed it would have been a matter of necessity for him to have some idea where he had come from and where he was going in order to have the confidence to go out and kill his victims in public like that - many serial killers tend to start off close to home or a "home base" and branch out from there. Not saying Jack was the same as other serial killers but it could be an indication, depending on whether you think Tabram or Nichols or somebody else was the first actual victim.

It wasn't like he could just pull out a street map or ask a friendly local for directions whilst the police were in hot pursuit.

I DO agree with you that he might have lived near a main thoroughfare, OR he used these main thoroughfares in order to escape, just blending in with the crowd....

It is the police searches of the local area and the vigilant lookouts from all and sundry that concern me most about him being a local in the truest sense of the word. As you've also alluded to, why go further afield when he's got the easiest victims on his doorstep - that's very true, Whitechapel and Spitalfields were notorious and his victims never stood a chance, but that's true whether he lived in Whitechapel or not.

I can only re-iterate that I do believe he was an East Ender, but would be careful with the "local" tag.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Lechmere]

Phil – the cat meat trade was quite a big one – it was one of the ways they disposed of the tons of dead horseflesh that was available each year in London. It was something of a cottage industry. Therefore the presence of a cat meat shop at Hanbury Street isn’t that noteworthy.
Not that there isn’t potentially a cat meat connection to the case – availability of big sharp knives etc.

Also (I just said this on another thread) I don’t see the requirement for the Ripper to have cased the Hanbury Street joint prior to the murder. If a potential victim took him to a location where he didn’t feel comfortable in carrying out his depredations, all he had to do was make his excuses and leave. I would bet this happened a few times with the potential victim being left none the wiser.

I see the whole Kosminsky thing as an academic exercise in identifying who McNaughten etc mentioned and trying to piece together details from his life. But I think those details point away from him being a serious suspect or the culprit.

But he must have know those streets well and been confident and at ease in them. They would have been particularly intimidating to an outsider. People who commit crimes usually do them in places where they feel comfortable. That is why geographical profiling is used.
And Bucks Row is fairly deep into the East End. A place locals would frequent, rather than sailors from the docks or people who might be drawn to the business areas around Commercial Street.
And yes the ‘double event’ combined with the graffiti/apron strongly suggests local knowledge.

On motivation, serial killers often pick on prostitutes not out of hatred of women or prostitution but because they are the easiest to snare, and it is a general domination, ‘being in charge’, power kick.
If the time he had available to kill was the early hours of the morning (which seems to be the case), then what other potential victims were available to him? This again points to a local working man.

Lastly the East End had a vast population, a significant proportion of which was transitory. It was a good place not to be noticed and remembered, outside someone’s immediate neighbourhood. In any event I am not convinced that any of the ‘sightings’ were of the Ripper.

[bolo]

Mac,

What was the alternative? Run down the street with a knife in one hand while waving a uterus round in the other?!

I've hinted at some options in my previous posts, there always are alternative ways to escape if you know a particular area very well.

When I say that I think the killer acted instinctively, I don't refer to a slobbering madman who runs around half-naked with a blood-dripping knife in his hand but a killer who was in a mental condition before, during and after killing and mutilating a victim that did not allow him to switch back to a more controlled and calmer state which would have enabled him to stop for a minute and think about his options. That is why I believe he knew that he could rely on his intimate knowledge of Whitechapel and adjacent areas to escape without thinking twice about it, no matter where his victims had led him.

Not one person was traced by the police as being at the vicinity of the crimes after having been identified by a witness, even though JTR must have been seen - whether squirelling around in warrens or otherwise. Doesn't that tell you that police work in those days was a difficult business and you didn't need to have an A-Z knowledge of the environs?

Shortly after the Tabram and Nichols killings when there were no/not a lot of vigilance committee members, plain clothes, self-proclaimed p.i.'s, reward hunters or additional coppers around, it must have been relatively simple for the killer to act as a normal passer-by and get away with it (even though I doubt he ever did). However, when things began to heat up in the East End, extensive knowledge of the surroundings became essential, at least in my opinion.

Yes, this is pure conjecture, based on what I've read about serial killers and personal experience with how to move about in an area you know inside out without being seen.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mac,

the thing is, I simply don't believe that the murderer was able to switch from a blood-thirsty mutilator to an innocent passer-by in just a few seconds and then calmy strolled away from the crime scene with a number of organs of the victims on his person (in some cases).

What was the alternative? Run down the street with a knife in one hand while waving a uterus round in the other?!

Bolo, I'd estimate that whether or not local, whether knowing the streets or otherwise, the killer would have exited the crime scene and walked down the street. Now in his mind he may have been all over the place, but outwardly he'd have appeared normal - which quite clearly is the case because no one came forward to say that a maniac was roaming around - and whether he knew the streets or not he must have been seen by someone. It follows thus: quite clearly he did not behave like a maniac after committing the murders.

When you deal with the objective facts and peel away the layers of personal projection, the evidence of what actually happened tells us that: a) the police received no information of someone in the vicinity that could lead to them picking up someone, let alone someone acting like a mad man and b) the conclusion has to be that, for the reasons I stated earlier, killing in the East End of London simply wasn't particularly hazardous, with the implication being knowledge of the streets wasn't required in order to evade detection.

As it seems to be the general consensus that he did not actively choose the places of his crimes but was led to them by his victims, he must have felt quite confident that he could escape from anywhere he wanted. I doubt that a non-local could reach this level of confidence.

I stated in my previous post all of the reasons that gave him a decent chance of escape - local or otherwise -and stating that: "I doubt a non local man could have reached this level of confidence" simply doesn't wash as a response to what it was actually like/what actually happened in the East End of London in 1888.

Not one person was traced by the police as being at the vicinity of the crimes after having been identified by a witness, even though JTR must have been seen - whether squirelling around in warrens or otherwise. Doesn't that tell you that police work in those days was a difficult business and you didn't need to have an A-Z knowledge of the environs?

Mac,

In my opinion, the murderer acted instinctively when he was in "killing mode", and in order to get away from the scene of crime, he used the complexity of an area he knew inside out to his advantage.

Regards,

Boris

Bolo, are you suggesting he wasn't actually seen by anyone as a result of using warrens to make his escape? Hmmmm, he must have been seen. And, obviously, he couldn't control who was in what street when - so knowledge of the streets did not mean he could have escaped without been seen.

The evidence of this man who went out of his way to not be seen simply isn't in place. The Stride murder? Lawende's sailor? Killing at the back of a yard with people sleeping above? The conclusion is that police work was a difficult business in those days, and he fancied his chances of getting away with it - local or otherwise.

I have a hunch that he knew the streets well. Based simply on a hunch that he drank in the pubs and had used prostitutes in the past. But, there is no real evidence to support this and certainly no evidence to suggest he must have known the streets - the evidence suggests he didn't need to know the streets at all. Clearly, you had people such as Grainger and Sadler who when the ship was docked came up to use the pubs, whores and lodging houses - I would go with someone of this type being the killer.

[bolo]

Mac,

the thing is, I simply don't believe that the murderer was able to switch from a blood-thirsty mutilator to an innocent passer-by in just a few seconds and then calmy strolled away from the crime scene with a number of organs of the victims on his person (in some cases). As it seems to be the general consensus that he did not actively choose the places of his crimes but was led to them by his victims, he must have felt quite confident that he could escape from anywhere he wanted. I doubt that a non-local could reach this level of confidence.

In my opinion, the murderer acted instinctively when he was in "killing mode", and in order to get away from the scene of crime, he used the complexity of an area he knew inside out to his advantage.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi RipperNoob, all,

someone who not only does not want to be seen but also needs to escape as quickly as possible

I think this is at the root of my proposition versus others'.

Does it matter if he's seen in the vicinity? Does it matter if he doesn't really know his way around and knows only that he came East to get into the square, so head West and one of the narrow roads will lead onto a main road whence he came?

Experience tells us that, really, it didn't matter. We have gangs killing people in the street and getting off Scot free; we have, supposedly, the gentleman Broad Shoulders accosting someone in the street and disappearing without trace; we have, supposedly, G. Hutchinson esquire standing around for nigh on an hour in the vicinity of the murder scene and no one comes forward to identify him as being there; we have Grainger who got caught red handed, but quite clearly fancied his chances of getting away with dragging someone down an alley and killing her; we have Lawende's sailor stood with the victim 10 minutes before the murder and he disappears without a trace; we have Blotchy - another one who disappeared without trace. That was the nature of the beast in Victorian East London. In fact, do we have evidence of anyone actually been identified by a witness as being in the vicinity of the crime scene? A single one?! As far as I can see, the best evidence against anyone wasn't that he was identified as been in the locality, but rather he wore a leather apron! Surely, the known evidence tells us that the East End of London was capital ground for avoiding the clutches of the police and witnesses?

So, all JTR needs to do is to not get caught red handed. Step out of the square/alleyway and he's just another fella walking down the street. No DNA, no advanced fingerprinting, no ability to match blood, reluctance/poor quality of witnesses etc.

I would contend that his sole concern would have been to avoid been seen in the square/alley for the 10/20 minutes it took to snare and carve up his victims. Killing between 12-5 in the morning - what chance was there of someone entering the square/alley at that time of the morning in the 10-20 minutes he was there? Not as high as people seem to assume. Add to this the convenience of a prostitute taking you to a spot that they know is quiet and private and it follows thus: far too much emphasis is placed on this killer who must have known the streets.

Edited to add:

Look at Stride's killer. We know there were a lot of people milling about or in the immediate vicinity. And the police fail to come up with anything. Not a single thing that can remotely lead to an arrest. Surely this experience suggests that killing in the East End of London simply wasn't particularly hazardous, and as such any killer had a decent chance of getting away with it. Now, Stride's killer must have been seen in the vicinity - must have been - yet he disappears without trace - another one. Because, ultimately, unless caught red handed, you're just another fella walking down the street - and once safely at home, there's no DNA testing within a 3 mile radius that was used in an attempt to catch Peter Sutcliffe.

[bolo]

Hi RipperNoob, all,

of course it is possible for a non-local to become familiar with a certain neighbourhood but knowing how to get from A to B using the normal roads and alleys alone is not going to cut it for someone who not only does not want to be seen but also needs to escape as quickly as possible

When I was a kid, I lived in an area with lots of old houses, dark backyards, narrow byways and windings streets. It was not quite as labyrinthic as Whitechapel but still confusing enough for non-locals. Not only did I know all the streets and alleys like the back of my hand, I also was aware of other less obvious escape options, like private backyards, doors and backdoors of houses that were never locked, interconnected cellars of appartment blocks that could be entered and exited by unlocked windows, underground carparks, schoolyards, etc. Almost every point of the area was reachable via these unofficial routes and we often made use of them to escape from enraged adults, the police or any other trouble we had caused, or just for fun. We always were a step ahead of every non-local or even locals not in-the-know.

That is why I tend to agree to the notion of the killer as a local man who had lived in the East End for most of his life. Yes, a non-local killer could have chosen the larger thoroughfares such as Whitechapel Road or Commercial Street as reference points but since it is very likely that he did not actively seek out secluded places but was led to them by his victims, he most probably was unable to predict where he would end up at the nights of the murders. The fact alone he was able to get away from the Chapman crime scene without the slightest trace tells me that he had other options at hand than just a rushed escape to a well-lit thoroughfare.

Or maybe he was just a particularly lucky bastard...

Regards,

Boris

[Sister Hyde]

Personally I think the killer knew the area well - either because he lived there or worked there or had so done in the past. It is even possible he was slightly known to his victims.

Well considering that these women still got lured to their death despite the general "scare", it is possible that they knew him a little, even if only by sight. Which also points to the murdered being well acquainted to his "turf".

[Limehouse]

Adam,

So, we're talking degrees here.

Well, I don't think he was too far from main thoroughfares/roads, so could have simply headed for one of these roads and found his way from there. I take your point about big cities and getting lost - maybe you have something there. So, I'd say that a non local man would have needed to have known how to get back to where he lived using a main road, but, still, I maintain he would not have needed knowledge of back alleys and squares.

I think a better argument for the man being local is that it wasn't as risky killing in his own environs as what it is today; really, there was no real reason to go further afield.

How would he know where the main roads were to head towards if he didn't know the area so well? Today there would be clues such as traffic sounds and brighter lights but that would not have been the case in those days. And if those roads were better lit and busier with carts and cabs he'd have been taking an enormous risk of being seen heavily bloodied.

I agree with your last point though - the vicitms were right htere for the taking.

Personally I think the killer knew the area well - either because he lived there or worked there or had so done in the past. It is even possible he was slightly known to his victims.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Adam,

So, we're talking degrees here.

Well, I don't think he was too far from main thoroughfares/roads, so could have simply headed for one of these roads and found his way from there. I take your point about big cities and getting lost - maybe you have something there. So, I'd say that a non local man would have needed to have known how to get back to where he lived using a main road, but, still, I maintain he would not have needed knowledge of back alleys and squares.

I think a better argument for the man being local is that it wasn't as risky killing in his own environs as what it is today; really, there was no real reason to go further afield.

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood:

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post before commenting - I said that while I believe Jack lived in the vicinity, he need not necessarily have been a local of Whitechapel/Spitalfields, because the women he killed would have been the ones to lead him to the quiet, out of the way spots.

What I mean is that he must have had a fairly good knowledge of the layout of the areas he operated in, not only in order to find his way into them but to find his way out of them again in poorly lit streets and mazes of back alleys and what not.

I, like many others i'm sure, have found out the hard way what it's like to become hopelessly lost and walking around in circles in cities which are much smaller and bette lit than London in 1888 was. For Jack, that would have been dangerous indeed, if he became lost in the area of his crimes with the police hot on his tail and a bloody knife and probably even human organs upon his person.

No, he must have known his way around the streets well enough to be confident about making an escape - which he did. If anything, his movements on the night of the Double Event illustrate this, I think.

Again, that's not to say that he might have had a second career as a local tourist guide, though.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
My take has to be, the likely-hood that some roughneck was responsible for the murder of Martha T, Nichols, Chapman, and Stride, but not for Kate E, or Mary Kelly, who were committed by another hand.
To explain.
I would suggest that after Strides killer was disturbed, he quickly ran from the scene, and did not encounter Eddowes, she was accosted by someone, who inquired the whereabouts of one Mary with added description.
''That sounds like Mary Jane Millers court, she lives with a man called Joe, she is well known in the area''[ my words].
For fear that she may tell of the meeting , he despatches poor Kate in such a fashion , that she is assumed to be another victim of the recent murders.
I speculate that this man was the same person who went to Millers court looking for Mary, the man that McCarthy sent packing, who claimed she had stolen a valuable watch of his.
I also speculate that the same man was on the streets again before 2am on the 9th [ seen by Hutchinson] flaunting his watch and chain, as Kelly approached, and it was he that killed her in a frenzy ..
Although Ms Kendall has never disclosed who her family believed killed Kelly, the very fact that she on Casebook, mentioned that visit, and stated also that the family knew the motive also, would indicate to me, that the man with a grudge was their suspect.
Could be wrong[ of course] but the gap in time, between Eddowes and Kelly, and the fact that she took in sleepovers even after Barnett left might indicate that she feared someone, and we don't know exactly when this man called at Millers court, the killer could have been waiting his chance.
Regards Richard,