Where did the Ripper likely live?

[GregBaron]

All that different?

Well, you’re probably right Fleetwood that Stride’s was the most bustling of the areas. But I could see him doing his work in the incredibly dark entrance to Dutfield’s yard while the Jews sang nearby and a few stragglers walked about Berner Street. I believe part of the thrill was the danger.

And you’re right it was earlier than the others but so was Eddowes. She was probably off’d about 1:37 a.m. roughly about 40 minutes after Stride….

I’m just not sure we can eliminate Stride based on risk and timeframe…

Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not sure we can judge risk assessment of the various sites Fleetwood. They were all incredibly risky. Someone could have stumbled upon them or looked out the window or through the window etc. in all cases. The boldness is a major hallmark of these crimes...

Greg

In the same way that anyone makes a judgement call, and of course the risk assessment is my own assessment in accordance with what I feel constitutes high risk or otherwise, just as yours is yours.

I feel the chance of someone knocking on Kelly's door between 2 and 5 in the morning was slim. I mean, Cox wasn't too disturbed by the 'noiseless shabby' looking man entering her room with her at midnight - she didn't go back to knock on her door.

According to Morris, Mitre Square was a 'respectable and quiet area'. It would have seemed relatively risk free - unless of course he was aware of police beats and Morris's habits.

Chapman? Behind a house at night? Possibly more risky as he should have known that people would have been getting up to go to work - such was the nature of the East End.

Stride? no ifs and buts, what did he know, what didn't he know etc. He certainly must have known he was about to kill someone in a busy area with people returning from pubs, getting their supper at that time. It wasn't as late as the others. And with a club on the go next door.

In sum: Stride must have been very risky to any man; whereas the others are open to debate and personal projection.

And, consequently, to me it doesn't fit with the murders in terms of risk, unless of course he lost control and just had to do it at that point in time - which certainly would make it the odd one out in terms of risk taken.

[GregBaron]

All risky...

Again, my own personal view is that MJK murder was a relatively safe location; in his mind he may have felt the Eddowes location was relatively safe assuming he wasn't aware of police beats; Chapman relatively safe.

The Stride murder stands out as the one where he must have known he took a huge risk, which again could point away from her being JTR's handywork.

I'm not sure we can judge risk assessment of the various sites Fleetwood. They were all incredibly risky. Someone could have stumbled upon them or looked out the window or through the window etc. in all cases. The boldness is a major hallmark of these crimes...

Greg

[Phil H]

Adam

What if Chapman WAS killed earlier - around the time of the murder of Nichols (i.e. before 4a.m)?

The backyard of No 29 would have been MUCH safer and less risky for the killer when it was still dark, and Mrs Long's sighting and what Cadoche heard do not necessarily insist that they saw/heard "Jack".

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was just joking, no offense meant!

None taken, Bolo. I appreciate you were posting 'just for jollies'!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, my personal opinion, Adam, is that the major obstacle was not being caught red handed. And, I've mentioned the subsequent search so not much use in going through that again.

Again, my own personal view is that MJK murder was a relatively safe location; in his mind he may have felt the Eddowes location was relatively safe assuming he wasn't aware of police beats; Chapman relatively safe.

The Stride murder stands out as the one where he must have known he took a huge risk, which again could point away from her being JTR's handywork.

[Edward]

Semantics and other thoughts ...

Hello All –

The streets of London’s East End seem to have been fairly busy during the LVP, even between the hours of midnight and 5:00 am. Those streets were definitely not deserted. To me, the question of whether Jack was ‘seen’ or not seen is moot. In my mind, the question is this: Was Jack recognized as a possible suspect? (apparently, he was not) The killer obviously had the ability to blend in with the locals milling around the dimly lit streets in the middle of the night.

Blood on Jack’s clothes? Given the street lighting of that era, Jack would probably have to be soaked with blood in order to be discovered. There was some medical opinion at the time that the killer was not necessarily covered with blood. His appearance and demeanor did not draw attention to himself while leaving the scene of the crime.

As for the police searches, when an alarm sounds, the officers rush to the scene of the crime, get organized, then begin moving outwards looking for the killer. Walking, even a 2 or 3-minute head start on the police would be huge. (especially in the jumble of narrow streets and alleys of the East End). Running in the vicinity of a murder would tend to draw attention to one’s self, so I assume that Jack walked away. Once Jack made it out of the immediate area of the murder, there was no reason to suspect him as the killer more than any other person on the street.

Local or not? I don’t think that Jack necessarily had to be a local. His movement after the Eddowes murder between Mitre Square and Ghoulston Street has me leaning toward him being local. (He did not move to a major thoroughfare and immediately exit the area.)

Jack did not necessarily have to be cunning. Did he take chances? Yes. Was he lucky? Yes. The murders took place in dark secluded (or semi-secluded) places. (probably picked out by his victims) The odds of him being caught red-handed were there, but they were not overwhelming. Once the killer walked away and turned a corner, he was for the most part, home free.

Best regards,
Edward

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro
I don’t think the A-man description necessarily equates to a toff.
Also I am also not at all sure that Hutchinson saw Kelly with anyone. My general view is that Hutchinson was a false witness who did it for the money.

[Adam Went]

Phil H:

I know it’s an old one about Druitt and I’ve made it clear elsewhere exactly what I think of Druitt’s candidacy as the Ripper, but given that he played a game of cricket on the same day as Annie Chapman’s murder, though it is possible that he could have got from Spitalfields back to the cricket ground in time for the game, I think it’s highly unlikely that he would have attempted to do so. Why wait until 5.30 am to murder the victim when he could have done it 3, 4, 5 hours earlier as with his other victims, and still have time to get home and rest up and get ready for the game? As it is we must presume he’d been up all night on the hunt and then raced back to Blackheath and gone straight to his game.

Really? Having played the game I can assure everybody that pulling an all nighter before a game is not a wise idea. His fellow players would have noticed and the first time he dropped an absolute pudding of a catch because he was dozing at mid-off, his team mates would have been right onto him. They would have noticed and if they had any suspicion at all about his nocturnal activities, they surely would have raised them then.

I believe the scorecard from the August 8 match has actually been discovered previously and Druitt had a decent match….. so it’s hard to reconcile all of that with his being in Spitalfields at daybreak on the same day, wandering around with all sorts of gruel on him.

Fleetwood:

Yep, it’s the old question, what would you do? Of course it was the job of the police to investigate suspicious characters but as you say, in that area, there would have been many, the attitude towards the police was already an unfriendly one at best and they were often on solo patrols at the time….putting yourself in their shoes, one would be wary to approach a suspicious character. Especially if he made his getaway through the thoroughfares as we’ve discussed.

But more importantly, as you alluded to as well, by the time the search was begun in full, the killer had already had enough time to make his escape.
I think the main point is that there was just always a major element of risk involved and he was always taking a chance, and it’s hard to believe that he got lucky on so many occasions, so many instances of “missed him by THAT much!”.

Cheers,
Adam.

[bolo]

Talk about clutching at straws!

I was just joking, no offense meant!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mac,



if we assume that was near of/entered his lodgings after 15 minutes of walking away from the crime scene, doesn't this mean he was a local man?

Ah well, maybe I'm putting too much thought in the local/non-local question but there's something in me that is reluctant to accept the simple solution.

Regards,

Boris

Talk about clutching at straws!

Think you said it yourself when you said 'assume'.

[bolo]

Mac,

Yes, because by the time the police undertake their search, he has walked 15 minutes away - assuming he hasn't entered his home/lodgings. Presumably, as per the Eddowes search, they start by searching the immediate vicinity, and all the time Jack is moving farther away.

Simple!

if we assume that was near of/entered his lodgings after 15 minutes of walking away from the crime scene, doesn't this mean he was a local man?

Ah well, maybe I'm putting too much thought in the local/non-local question but there's something in me that is reluctant to accept the simple solution.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Would it be possible for a man in this condition to simply walk away from the crime scene and blend in with the crowd? Perhaps, but I have my doubts about it.

Regards,

Boris

Yes, because by the time the police undertake their search, he has walked 15 minutes away - assuming he hasn't entered his home/lodgings. Presumably, as per the Eddowes search, they start by searching the immediate vicinity, and all the time Jack is moving farther away.

Simple!

[bolo]

Lechmere, Phil,

as far as I know, many (all?) constables on nightly beats carried small lanterns with them, they probably were not as bright as a modern flashlights but good enough to spot bloodstains on peoples' clothes, even if they were made of dark fabric.

I also thought about public water taps/washing facilities the killer could have used to provisionally clean himself. While this option does seem plausible to some extend, it would have had to be done very shortly after the blood got on his skin because once dry, it gets quite difficult to remove with only a bit of water. Same goes for small splashes that may have ended up in his face. Fresh blood has body temperature which makes it difficult to notice that you have just been hit. The thing is, washing, however quick, would have cost him quite a bit of his advantage over the pursuers. In my opinion, he carried a rag or cloth with him which he used to wipe himself more or less clean on the go.

As mentioned in my previous post, I don't think that the killer was soaked in blood from head to toe but judging from what he did with Chapman or Eddowes, there must have been enough of the "proper red stuff" on him/his clothes to make him highly suspicious. Would it be possible for a man in this condition to simply walk away from the crime scene and blend in with the crowd? Perhaps, but I have my doubts about it.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

But you believe in Astro Man , don't you ?
Do you think he had a private jet -or cloven hooves ?

Quite clearly, Hutchinson's account of A man was unusual but not extraodinary:

a) Hutchinson clearly felt it would be believable.

b) Abberline believed him.

He wasn't exactly laughed out of court.

I personally feel the key to Hutchinson's intentions were the additions to his statement as follows:

a) He thought he saw Kelly's companion again in Middlesex Street on 11th November but couldn't be sure.

b) He had apparently stayed out until 3.00am on 13th November looking for the man.

Were I a Hutchsonian, I'd be arguing that if this man is in it for the money then he's not doing himself a favour as he's now showing himself to be of limited use in providing an identification, and consequently of limited use to the police further down the line. So, what is his objective when providing the two statements?

Oh, as an aside, if he stayed out til 3, where did he then go? Obviously 'in' somewhere as per H's statement. I've heard it argued that he wouldn't have access to lodgings after 2?????