Where did the Ripper likely live?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Watch out for Big Ted (known for our sakes as Anderson) and Little Ted (Swanson), who may have been influenced by
Jemima, the ragdoll with long red and white striped legs. (Macnaughten)
However, Hamble (Warren) was a little doll and one of the original five toys replaced by Poppy (Monro). Hamble was chosen as representative of a more "downtrodden", humble background than the "middle-class" associations that the teddy bears had.
Humpty (a famous Ripperologist), a dark green large egg-shaped soft toy (known in the Sixties as a 'Gonk') with green trousers, to look like Humpty Dumpty from the nursery rhyme
Poppy, a black doll who replaced Hamble in the later years of the series in response to changing attitudes in society (the Hamble doll was also getting rather fragile at this point... not suprising after her constant to-do's with Big Ted and Little Ted)...

Sounds like the Ripper murders doesn't it. Complete with the Ripper investigation team.


kindly


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I have come to the conclusion that he lived in a house with a door with windows one two three and four ready to knock turn the lock its playschool.

Now as there were at least four murders one can assume that on the first he wemt out through the round window and then for the second the square window and so onn

[Monty]

Morris stated he had duties within the counting house and offices. He only went near the door, to put in ajar, moments before Watkins arrived.

Are we serious expecting Morris to be on sentry?

Monty

[Lechmere]

Yes - that does make more sense - entry via Mitre Street. I tend to be sceptical about all the wtnesses.

[Rubyretro]

I feel really guilty about replying to this, as it is totally 'off thread'...nevertheless it is too tempting..

...but in the silence of the stillness of that night, enclosed by all those mineral hard surfaces, anybody crossing that square would of made one hell of a noise. And the nightwatchman could hardly have had his radio on.
How could he not hear people passing near his door ?

We might hazard a guess that Jack was particularly quiet, sneaky, and silent...but he couldn't have silenced Eddowes walking across that square :
even if she unwittingly colluded with her attacker by trying to keep quiet she may have said a word, rustled her skirt, clattered her boots, stumbled on the cobbles (she couldn't have been entirely well so soon after being so drunk). Arguably, it would be more difficult than manoeuvring Liz a few feet behind that gate.

I don't think that he wanted to get caught, otherwise he would have been.

It seems alot less dangerous to come into Mitre Square from the other end and turn straight away to the darkest place and kill Eddowes as quickly as possible. That minimised all the risks of being heard or seen. It's way more logical.

Infact the only thing that defies that logic (seemingly) is Lawende's Witness Statement coupled with the timing. But Lawende might never have seen JTR and Eddowes.

[GregBaron]

Slip sliding away...

Well Fleetwood, the typically was mine. Here is what came from a press report given to police. Disregard the dangling modifier.

As a rule he could hear the footsteps of the policeman as he passed on his beat every quarter of an hour, so the it appeared impossible that the woman could have uttered any sound without his detecting it.

Perhaps as a rule and typically are the same thing? It does seem more likely to me he would hear a couple coming from Church passage than simply around the corner from Mitre Street. You would think that shoes, especially women's, would click on the cobblestones, yet, wasn't it raining that morning!, perhaps that's the solution?

Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

And didn’t Morris say he typically heard the footsteps of the cops on their beats

Great point, Greg, which I hadn't thought of.

If the couple are Kate and Eddowes, they have to walk fairly close to the warehouse to get to the corner. So, why doesn't he hear them? Is it because the couple entered the square through Mitre Street? Mind you, I suppose typically leaves room for not every time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

the timing is simply too tight for someone else to quickly sneak in.

It's the other way round.

If the couple seen by Lawende are Jack and Kate, then he has from 1.35(and a few seconds for the 3 fellas to leave) to 1.44 (less a few seconds before Watkins discovers the body and looks at his watch - to get her into the corner, kill, mutilate, gather up the organs, leave.

If the couple were not Kate and Jack, then he has the same as above except he has the possibility of an earlier start - 1.32.

It really does rest on Lawende's testimony.

[GregBaron]

Tight timeline...

I like Fleetwood’s scenario and agree with Ruby that it might be 50/50 that Lawende saw the murderer. The timeline is awfully tight and as Fleetwood says; they are having an amicable chat at 1:35. And didn’t Morris say he typically heard the footsteps of the cops on their beats, yet with the door open at 1:42 or 1:43 he neither hears nor sees anything……….perhaps the ripper and Eddowes came in from Mitre Street? Let’s face it, Victorian unfortunates probably looked a lot alike from behind. Maybe the police convinced Lawende he saw the murderer because they wanted him to have?

Ben may indeed be right that this isn’t the most likely scenario but I don’t think it can be ruled out.

Also, I think Jack attacked from the front as Chapman and Nichols seem to indicate. With the position of Eddowes, if they walked from Church passage Jack would have had to turn around, if they came from Mitre Street Eddowes would have had to turn around, which is more likely in this sort of transaction? I don’t know? Now some think Eddowes was attacked from behind which makes moot this argument.

By the way, I hope the thread barer isn't too displeased that we seemed to have veered off topic...

Greg

[Malcolm X]

[QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;190694][QUOTE=Rubyretro;190641]

I'm beginning to revise my opinion on this, Ruby.

Morris opened the door about 2-3 minutes before Watkins arrived. Let's say 1.42-1.43.

If the couple were Jack and Kate, then Jack would most likely have been there when Morris opened the door. And, Morris wouldn't have seen anything because Watkins had to shine his lamp in the corner, and he must not have heard anything. So, a couple standing at Church Passage/Duke Street would not have heard anything either.

Jack could have been in there at 1.32 killed her by 1.33. Couple arrive at 1.34 and stand chatting while the fellas pass by. Jack has mutilated and left by 1.40. Morris opens his door 1.42-1.43.

Is that more of a stretch than the following?

Jack is standing having a good old chin wag with Kate. Our 3 fella pass by at 1.35. As soon as their backs are turned Jack is in the square and has killed her by say 1.37. He has say 5 minutes minimum 6.5 minutes maximum to avoid at least being seen walking down the street by Watkins or Harvey, or 7 minutes maximum if he leaves by the Orange Market. More than likely, he was there when Morris opened the door, and escapes Watkins by maybe a minute.

Hmmmm.....

And we know with JTR, he was willing to kill with people nearby, e.g. Chapman, so I don't think the couple standing at the end of Church Passage would have phased him too much.

I suppose it all rests on Lawende's ID.

my guess is that this bloke with Eddowes is JTR, but the description of him is about 50% inacurate..... the timing is simply too tight for someone else to quickly sneak in.

did JTR worry if seen?....... no, only if stared at for a long time strait into the face.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;190641][QUOTE]

Ho ! Personally, I'm totally undecided and at 50/50.

On one hand, the tight timescale makes it very probable that the couple that Lawende saw was Eddowes and JTR.

On the otherhand, there is the fact that Eddowes' body was found in the opposite corner of the square to the passage where Lawende saw the couple, and the nightwatchman, with his door ajar and casting light, professed to have seen nor heard a thing. And it's a really echo-y place at night.

There were other entrances to the square, and the logic would be (as per Jack's other murders) to get into the murder spot and silence the victim as quickly as possible.

Moreover, Lawende saw the couple for such a short time, in bad light, and seems to have been concentrated on the man. I think that he identified Eddowes only by a bit of fabric -but he might of been pre-convinced by the
Police that the woman that he had seen, must have been Eddowes (given that time line). And that falsifies the results.

So, although half of me thinks that you are right , Ben -half of me has a serious doubt.

I'm beginning to revise my opinion on this, Ruby.

Morris opened the door about 2-3 minutes before Watkins arrived. Let's say 1.42-1.43.

If the couple were Jack and Kate, then Jack would most likely have been there when Morris opened the door. And, Morris wouldn't have seen anything because Watkins had to shine his lamp in the corner, and he must not have heard anything. So, a couple standing at Church Passage/Duke Street would not have heard anything either.

Jack could have been in there at 1.32 killed her by 1.33. Couple arrive at 1.34 and stand chatting while the fellas pass by. Jack has mutilated and left by 1.40. Morris opens his door 1.42-1.43.

Is that more of a stretch than the following?

Jack is standing having a good old chin wag with Kate. Our 3 fella pass by at 1.35. As soon as their backs are turned Jack is in the square and has killed her by say 1.37. He has say 5 minutes minimum 6.5 minutes maximum to avoid at least being seen walking down the street by Watkins or Harvey, or 7 minutes maximum if he leaves by the Orange Market. More than likely, he was there when Morris opened the door, and escapes Watkins by maybe a minute.

Hmmmm.....

And we know with JTR, he was willing to kill with people nearby, e.g. Chapman, so I don't think the couple standing at the end of Church Passage would have phased him too much.

I suppose it all rests on Lawende's ID.

[Monty]

Ruby,

Watkins checked his watch as Morris was collecting his lamp. He stated the time was 1.45am.

Morris stated he opened the door moments before Watkins called. Therefore the jar was only ajar briefly before Watkins called Morris, not all night.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

I would have to agree that the chances of Lawende's couple NOT being Eddowes and her killer must be considered slim

Ho ! Personally, I'm totally undecided and at 50/50.

On one hand, the tight timescale makes it very probable that the couple that Lawende saw was Eddowes and JTR.

On the otherhand, there is the fact that Eddowes' body was found in the opposite corner of the square to the passage where Lawende saw the couple, and the nightwatchman, with his door ajar and casting light, professed to have seen nor heard a thing. And it's a really echo-y place at night.

There were other entrances to the square, and the logic would be (as per Jack's other murders) to get into the murder spot and silence the victim as quickly as possible.

Moreover, Lawende saw the couple for such a short time, in bad light, and seems to have been concentrated on the man. I think that he identified Eddowes only by a bit of fabric -but he might of been pre-convinced by the
Police that the woman that he had seen, must have been Eddowes (given that time line). And that falsifies the results.

So, although half of me thinks that you are right , Ben -half of me has a serious doubt.

[Ben]

Thanks for your comments, Colin. We don’t appear to disagree on a great deal here, surprisingly, but I can assure you that I wasn’t “lobbying” for any particular suspect or “POI”. It was observed earlier in this discussion that the ripper could have procured his victims and made good his escapes by restricting himself to the main thoroughfares, whereas I feel that the evidence from the Mitre Square murder argues strongly against this, and points instead towards his use of the smaller alleys that allowed for a more direct retreat to the northern end of Goulston Street.

A southerly bolt into Whitechapel High Street and then north up the entire length of Goulston Street is just not a viable option, as the killer was bound to encounter PC Long on his beat. Since the location of the apron remnant was roughly opposite the eastern end of New Goulston Street, it is likely – or at least I consider it so – that the killer approached from this direction, and this would have necessitated the use (and concomitant knowledge) of the smaller streets, which were largely unfrequented by “outsiders”.

I certainly can’t accept that he wandered to Goulston Street “aimlessly”, or that the killer’s successful escape from every crime scene had anything to do with aimless wandering. You sensibly observed on another thread that the district was host to a number of cul-de-sac courts. Surely these would have been a potential death trap for the unwary and unfamiliar commuter-killer, who would have been compelled to double back in the direction of his crime as soon as he realized his costly error?

There is only so much luck that one can realistically attribute to the killer.

I don’t think the relatively closely clustered nature of the murder locations indicate that the killer was familiar with that region only. A Spitalfields-based murderer may well have been very familiar with Limehouse, but the problem with committing a murder there was that it necessarily entailed more exposure on the streets as he made his escape, walking all the way from Limehouse to Spitalfields, with knife and innards secreted about his person. It is very likely, to my mind, that the ripper’s ability to escape undetected was due to his ability to get off the streets relatively quickly, and this necessitated a nearby bolt-hole.

There really isn’t any evidence to suggest that the environs of Spitalfields were a Mecca for “middle-aged, estranged, alcoholic, destitute dollymops” anymore than other areas of London were. Nor is likely, as far as I’m concerned, that the killer had a specific type of victim in mind, or that he had any preference as to age. If the murderer was locally-based, the most common type of woman he was likely to find on the streets in the small hours would have been a middle-aged prostitute.

As far as the rarity of the “commuter” offender goes, Canter made the following observation in his book “Criminal Shadows”:

“In studies we have carried out, the “commuters” have been very rare. As a consequence, we have not obtained enough examples to establish whether the distances between crimes would enable us to tell if the offender was “commuting” into the area.”

He also observed the following of the Whitechapel murderer:

“The most parsimonious assumption to make is that the scenes of his crimes were within walking distance of each other because he walked to them from where he lived”.

As for West End toff-ists, I wasn’t thinking of you as one such proponent. I probably mentioned them because I’m haunted by the memory of having geography-related discussions with people who clearly were of that mindset.

“My revised model, which will be based upon the murder-site mean-center and a theoretical murder-site median-center, will see its focal point at the intersection of Thrawl Street and George Street, in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields, and will possibly place the Victoria Home for Working Men within the 95th percentile of its accordant probability distribution.”

Very interesting. I look forward to hearing more.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I would have to agree that the chances of Lawende's couple NOT being Eddowes and her killer must be considered slim.

And a close up look at a contemporary map reveals many small inter-connecting roads, alleyways and courts, throughout Whitechapel and Spitalfields. I know that people who are unfamiliar with the area today (and the layout has been drastically simplified) quickly get disorientated. So the evidence points to someone who knew the streets – probably walked them regularly.

Absolutely, Lechmere. Agreed entirely.