Where did the Ripper likely live?

[Garry Wroe]

It is likely therefore that the killer did know the area well and knew which courts and alleyways to disappear down without getting lost or cornered by police or a 'mob'.

Agreed entirely, Limehouse, though the mob activity tended to occur when the streets were more densely populated. The killer was clearly an individual who understood the principle of risk and reward, hence his propensity to strike when the streets were all but deserted. Just as this strategy would have virtually guaranteed a number of women desperate to earn sufficient to pay their doss, it would have permitted him to listen out for the clumping boots of approaching policemen and thus either escape or avoid the kind of situation that might have resulted in his capture. Simple but effective.

[Lechmere]

"The movement of local people throughout the day should also be considered."

Eh?

[Monty]

There is a report, going from memory here, where it was stated that only strangers in the area were stop searched by the local Bobbies.

However, to the supplement PCs everyone woud have been a stranger.

Also, there is more to the 'was Jack a local' question than the knowledge of streets. The movement of local people throughout the day should also be considered.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ben
I have to agree that it is exceptionally unlikely that the Ripper would have lived as far east as Bow or Bromley-by-Bow. Particularly someone who only briefly lived in the East End and had a vague connection with Whitechapel.
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.

And a further point on potential recognition... if we presume the Ripper was local for a moment, had he been seen by someone he knew, even vaguely, while in the company of a victim, just before the deed, then he could have just stopped and moved on. End of problem.

And yes Fleetwood – press reports (if we may believe them) frequently mention people being stopped and questioned in the vicinity of the murders, as the police fanned out. I guess if they didn’t have a knife on them and spots of blood on their cuffs, and a good plausible reason for being there then they were let go – and frequently people were hauled in for questioning at the police station, and this is also regularly mentioned in the press.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;188616]Really, FM? According to Walter Dew, ‘The most obscure corners were periodically visited. All suspicious characters were stopped and questioned.’

What constitutes a suspicious character? And, I suppose the contradictory nature of this statement is this: if these characters were so suspicious, then surely we have evidence of a fair number of these characters, stopped after one of the murders, being taken to a police station for further questioning?

Stopped and questioned: which would produce what results? Simple answer: just finished work or going to work, or anything, and could the police prove otherwise on the spot? In actual fact, what results did this produce? Zero. That's the evidence. Thinking about it, you're lending weight to my contention: all this stopping and searching and the police couldn't come up with anything remotely approaching a conviction. Tells a story: which is that the police had a very difficult job on their hands unless they managed to catch him red handed.

Alternatively, the conclusion that some appear to be forming is that he wasn't seen by anyone all the way home and therefore he knew the streets. JTR couldn't control who was in what street when, of course, and he didn't need to because experience tells us that the police were left clueless, literally.

Too many variabilities for my liking; I'll go for the easiest option.

[Limehouse]

Really, FM? According to Walter Dew, ‘The most obscure corners were periodically visited. All suspicious characters were stopped and questioned.’

And again: ‘Constables going on duty had very definite instructions. They were told to pull up and search any man whose actions raised the slightest doubt in their minds, and, if the answer given were not satisfactory, to bring such men to the police station while inquiries about them were made.’

Apart from Dew’s recollections, there are copious indications that investigators sought to snare their quarry by adopting a stop and search strategy.

Or do you think that those hunting the killer were unaware of basic policing procedures?

Additionally - there are press reports of 'suspects' (often just jibbering wanderers or strangers or eccentrics) being chased down the street by mobs of men and women sure they had identified 'jack the ripper'. This is an indication of the terror and hysteria produced by the murders and the determination of many to apprehend anyone acting or appearing 'different'.

It is likely therefore that the killer did know the area well and knew which courts and alleyways to disappear down without getting lost or cornered by police or a 'mob'.

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, Hunter. It seems that you have already made my point for me. Ever the bridesmaid, never the bride.

[Garry Wroe]

The reality is that we have no evidence of anyone being stopped and asked to empty their pockets and show their hands for blood. It didn't happen, so the threat of police searches was minimal as was the threat from vigilantes.

Really, FM? According to Walter Dew, ‘The most obscure corners were periodically visited. All suspicious characters were stopped and questioned.’

And again: ‘Constables going on duty had very definite instructions. They were told to pull up and search any man whose actions raised the slightest doubt in their minds, and, if the answer given were not satisfactory, to bring such men to the police station while inquiries about them were made.’

Apart from Dew’s recollections, there are copious indications that investigators sought to snare their quarry by adopting a stop and search strategy.

Or do you think that those hunting the killer were unaware of basic policing procedures?

[Hunter]

The reality is that we have no evidence of anyone being stopped and asked to empty their pockets and show their hands for blood. It didn't happen, so the threat of police searches was minimal as was the threat from vigilantes.

Inspr. Collard reported that several men were stopped and searched in the aftermath of the Mitre Square murder.

[curious4]

Where did?

Hello all,

I have studied the maps of the district and come to the conclusion that Wentworth street is the most likely place the murderer could have retired to quickly after the murders.

I don´t mean that he actually lived there, but, sticking with my "posh killer" fixation, think he may have rented a room there - the Prince of Wales apparently rented a room in the area in which to change his clothes before going slumming and I think it is very possible that other "posh" slummers did so as well. Also such a person would be less likely to have his room searched.

A look on the map will show just how central Wentworth street is to the murders I believe.

Regards,
C4

P.S. Not implying that the Prince of Wales was the killer, by the way. He seems to have been a very caring man as far as the poor were concerned.

[Ben]

We can also dispense with the idea that a local offender would have been recognized. Recognized as what? One of the many vaguely familiar faces in the district? Hardly very incriminating, providing he wasn't seen in the company of a soon-to-be victim by someone who knew him well. If he was, it would have been his shockingly bad luck, given the density of the transient population. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for assuming that Mary Cox or Elizabeth Long would have recognized Blotchy and Deerstalker Man respectively as someone they knew had the men in question been local. Is it credible that Cox would have ruled out Blotchy being local on the basis that she would have known him had he been one of the many thousands of men living in the immediate area?

And no, the nights on which the murders were committed (i.e. NOT only on weekends) do not argue against the killer being local. How would that one work? Because he couldn't control his "emotions/instincts"? Sorry, but that's nonsense. If that were the case, we'd hear of similar murders being committed elsewhere. If he could control those "emotions instincts" in Whitechapel between Monday and Thursday, he could certainly control them elsewhere.

[Ben]

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's because you have the benefit of a birds-eye-view, James. You can see where all the roads lead to, something that a hypothetical non-local ripper would not have had available to him. It would have been a very different story on the dimly lit ground, with buildings obscuring the view. As for whether or not he used the main thoroughfares for his escapes, I think it's fairly obvious that he did not. This is demonstrated particularly well in the Mitre Square case, where his direction of escape - back towards the heart of the murder district - was made pretty clear courtesy of the discarded apron fragment. His actual route is less clear, but it's obvious he didn't emerge onto Whitechapel High Street, then took a left onto Goulston Street as this would have necessitated traversing the entire length of the latter street and mysteriously missing PC Long.

Since this didn't happen, it is clear he took the most direct route to the apron disposal location (the northern end of Goulston Street), which meant negotiating a "maze" of smaller alleys which would doubtless have befuddled anyone without an intimate knowledge of the area: St. James Passage, Duke Street, Stoney Lane, New Goulston Street. This would have taken approximately five minutes and would have taken him directly to the northern end of Goulston Street which he had only to cross in order to dump the apron.

Of course, the fact that he did cross it suggests that his bolt-hole resided further east of the disposal location (unhappily for anyone angling for a West End toff). The question is, how much further. Well, if it was appreciably further, it would make him one of the "very rare" commuters (according to David Canter). The problem here is that if he was living in relatively far-flung Spanby Street (for example), as William Bury was in 1888, it must be considered unlikely that he'd be at all familiar with the small alleyways between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, as the real killer undoubtedly was.

Hence, I consider it more than likely that the killer was based in Whitechapel or Spitalfields. I can't think of a single "commuter" serial killer who approached, dispatched and disposed of his victims within very easy walking distance of each other.

All the best,
Ben

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

James,

Now, you have something there in that it is an objective fact that the murders were comitted between Friday morning and Sunday/Monday morning. I'm no statistician, but I'd estimate that this is unlikely to be a coincidence.

There has to be a reason for that; any opinion of course is guesswork.

I suppose logic/Ockhams's Razor would suggest that he wasn't there Monday to Thursday, unless of course someone is going to argue that he was in control of his emotions/instincts and deliberately saved it for weekends.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac:

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.

Adam,

Again, there is the experience of what actually happened versus modern attempts to rationalise the situation.

It seems that the people we know to be out on the streets simply weren't stopped on their way home. The like of Lawende make no mention of having been stopped and searched and they were in the area at the time of a crime (regardless of being found as a witness during door to door searches). In fact, we have local men searching out policemen as opposed to the other way round. We know that Cross went on his way without any search of his person, and this was a man at the crime scene when the body was found. Also, you have the apron find at Goulston Street: the policeman concerned didn't even knock on the doors of the inhabitants of that dwelling. And, if you're not going to check that out, then why is a policeman about to stop a man walking down the street with nothing to connect him to the crimes?

The reality is that we have no evidence of anyone being stopped and asked to empty their pockets and show their hands for blood. It didn't happen, so the threat of police searches was minimal as was the threat from vigilantes.

Why people weren't stopped and searched can be reasoned today; I'd guess it simply didn't bear fruit in those days due to underdeveloped police detection methods at their disposal. Also, perhaps policemen were reluctant to come across JTR for fear of being attacked?

Once at home, quick wash of hands and JTR simply does not have a problem - nothing whatsoever to connect him to the crime.

In my view, for the reasons mentioned on this thread, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that he was probably a local man in order to evade detection. Really, opinions amount to hunches, which are built on no more solid foundations than estimating the mind of JTR.

[curious]

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.

If you stick with just the canonical 5, there are so few it is very difficult to be sure there is a day pattern . . . or if the killings had more to do with the killer's "urges" than with his employment.