Where did the Ripper likely live?

[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]

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]

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,

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 donīt 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.