Where did the Ripper likely live?

[Garry Wroe]

The point I'm making Garry is this: how many police witness statements do we have of a PC emptying someone's pockets on the streets in say a half an hour period after a body was found? Once half an hour is out of the way, he's long gone.

Agreed, FM. But contrary to your earlier emphatic statement, a stop and search policy was certainly employed during the Ripper manhunt. It may not have produced the desired result, but it was used nevertheless.

The Whitechapel Murderer was not the only criminal active at the time. Police had to contend with robbers, muggers, housebreakers, pickpockets, burglars and all manner of villains who contributed to a crime wave which at the time was swamping East London. Stop and search was thus a simple but effective procedure that helped to identify such villains as they went about their business. Given its efficacy, moreover, it should come as no surprise that it was used as part of a stratagy intended to bring the Ripper to justice. A century hence, similar procedures resulted in the capture of Arthur Shawcross and Peter Sutcliffe.

Like I said: simple but effective.

[Phil H]

I return to this thread after a weekend away. The posts since I last looked are interesting, but appear in the main to be expressions of preference, belief or opinion (often shaded by a preconceived idea of who dunnit) - at least that's my perception.

To pick up on a few points:

There's also the point that if he was a local, he might well have been recognised by name or face (or both) by another local witness who had seen him or been associated with him in the past. Yet despite the fact that many saw him, nobody could put a name to the face.

That could, of course, be because no one saw the real "Jack". Mrs Long may have been mistaken (especially if JtR struck earlier than conventionally supposed); and it is only a long-held convention that Lawende saw "Jack".

The situation is further complicated if Stride and MJK were not victims of the same hand as the earlier woman.

If you deal in the objective facts, there is nothing to suggest this man must have been, or probably was, local. Nothing at all.

I would strongly disagree - the location at which the apron fragment was discarded; the escape from Mitre Square; the use of the backyard at No 29 to me speak of familiarity with the area and police procedures, and a resonable explanation for that is that "Jack" resided there.

You're applying reason to his thought process. Does JTR seem like a reasonable man to you?

No, but we equally cannot rule out cunning - even an element of premeditation (though I don't necessarily argue that).

To me, I would go with him being controlled by his instincts and emotions, and therefore his actions were largely instinctive.

But your use of the word "largely" implies that you accept that there is room for other things. I think the murderer probably did have an overwhelming urge to kill and mutilate, but part of his mind might still have been cool and calculating.

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".

I think this is a non-sequitur. These woman (at least Nichols and Chapman, maybe Eddowes were in a poor state from illness or alcohol) and in some cases desperate for a few coppers. In my view they would have gone with anyone who looked (in their hazy state) as if they would pay. [Eddowes may have thought she knew Jack and have met him on purpose - but I'm not going to place reliance on that.]

If you were to exclude Stride and MJK from the tally, the three women killed by "Jack" were early and all destitutes. The fewness of them makes making any deduction difficult, but I see absolutely no logic in assuming they knew their killer, even by sight.

Phil

[bolo]

Mac,

I think you underestimate the pressure the killer was confronted with. All those policemen on reinforced beats, vigilante comittee members and plain clothes on the streets may not have been sure who/what kind of person to look out for but the fact alone that there were quite a lot of them about in the East End from the early evening until the wee hours of the morning probably was reason enough for the killer to use some lesser-known byways and backyards for his escape, which would hint to someone with above-average knowledge of the area, read, a local man.

About the vigilantes, they conducted makeshift beats as far as I know so they were not only called to a crime scene after a murder had taken place but patrolled the streets for longer periods.

Regards,

Boris

[Garry Wroe]

And it's certainly interesting, Bolo, that the six-week hiatus between the Eddowes and Kelly murders occurred when the Vigilance Committee activities were at their most concentrated.

[bolo]

And it's certainly interesting, Bolo, that the six-week hiatus between the Eddowes and Kelly murders occurred when the Vigilance Committee activities were at their most concentrated.

Yes, and this could be another hint at a local person. As the committee consisted of local businessmen and other people who lived in the area, the killer may have feared that one of them could recognize him.

[Phil H]

Yes, and this could be another hint at a local person. As the committee consisted of local businessmen and other people who lived in the area, the killer may have feared that one of them could recognize him.

Or equally, of course, that MJK was murdered by a different hand. Other than an attempt at a copy-cat killing (as transmitted through the press) there would be no connection between the two murders, so your inference would be flawed.

I'm not arguing for two (three) killers of the canonical five as a firm conclusion, simply pointing out that conclusions drawn depend on the starting point. There is, after all no PROOF that the five woman were all killed by the same man, it is just contemporaneous belief and aconventional wisdom, too infrequently questioned.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

All those policemen on reinforced beats, vigilante comittee members and plain clothes on the streets may not have been sure who/what kind of person to look out for but the fact alone that there were quite a lot of them about in the East End from the early evening until the wee hours of the morning probably was reason enough for the killer to use some lesser-known byways and backyards for his escape, which would hint to someone with above-average knowledge of the area, read, a local man.

He could have done so.

But:

It seems obvious to some on this board that he must have done so. I wonder what the police and vigilantes thought? Would they have considered the possibility that Jack was making use of back yards and the like? During their search, would they have had the same idea as Jack had, i.e. using/checking the alley ways and backyards? Would Jack alone have had this idea?

He didn't escape because he alone knew streets/alleys that could take him home unseen.

He escaped because: a) He wasn't caught red handed b) by the time the body is found he's out of there c) By the time other policemen come to the scene, he's even further away d) Then they start fanning out and searching and by that time he's gone (either walking down the street further afield or in his home/lodgings).

Look at Frances Coles. Footsteps heard, two policemen at the scene. And they turn up what? Even when they were so close to someone, he's off and running into the night, while the police are left with the body. No walkie talkie to communicate that someone is running off in the direction of x street followed by police cars quickly arriving at the scene.

[Phil H]

On the question of labyrinthine allies and courts etc, looking at a map can be different from the experience on the ground and familiarity can be key here.

I vividly recall visiting London with my parents, as a small boy in the 50s and early 60s. Both my parents knew London well. For those who also know the "West End", I am thinking of the quadrilateral bounded by Charing Cross Road, Oxford St; Regents St and Coventry St/Leicester Square.

My parent's, to my astonishment would disappear down an alleyway near Leicester Sq tube station, traverse China Town and emerge somewhere like Brewer st or Old Compton St. They used the lesser roads to cut a diagonal (rather than a Diagon Alley!) short cut between place A and place B. I was fascinated when I went to live in London and explored these by-ways for myself.

On a map they are all named roads and streets, but the trick is knowing where they lead and how they interconnect. Know that and you can go anywhere. THAT is the sort of knowledge of Whitechapel and Spitalfields thatI believe "Jack" possessed. Added to it was a knowledge of the smaller alleys, courts etc (knowing that Miller's Court was a cul de sac might be important for instance) and where they led, could have made it easy for the killer to get away from the murder scene quickly and efficiently, even in almost pitch darkness.

Some of the by-ways of the East End might not even have been on maps - whether you could get through certain houses, because doors were left unlocked, for instance).

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Phil,

Take a look at the inquest testamonies re Eddowes' murder:

Edward Watkin, I did not touch the body. I ran across to Kearley and Long's warehouse. The door was ajar, and I pushed it open, and called on the watchman Morris, who was inside. He came out. I remained with the body until the arrival of Police-constable Holland. No one else was there before that but myself. Holland was followed by Dr. Sequeira. Inspector Collard arrived about two o'clock, and also Dr. Brown, surgeon to the police force.

Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: I dispatched a constable to Dr. Gordon Brown, informing him, and proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two. When I got to the square I took immediate steps to have the neighbourhood searched for the person who committed the murder. Mr. M'Williams, chief of the Detective Department, on arriving shortly afterwards sent men to search in all directions in Spitalfields, both in streets and lodging-houses.

George James Morris, I ran up Mitre-street into Aldgate, blowing my whistle all the while. Two constables came up and asked what was the matter. I told them to go down to Mitre-square, as there was another terrible murder. They went, and I followed and took charge of my own premises again.

James Harvey, City constable, 964: When I got into Aldgate, returning towards Duke-street, I heard a whistle and saw the witness Morris with a lamp. I asked him what was the matter, and he told me that a woman had been ripped up in Mitre-square. Together with Constable Hollins I went to Mitre-square, where Watkins was by the side of the body of the deceased. Hollins went for Dr. Sequeira, and a private individual was despatched for other constables, who arrived almost immediately, having heard the whistle. I waited with Watkins, and information was sent to the inspector.

Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined.

1) The beat bobbies simply went to the scene, i.e. didn't look for anyone.

2) Halse and Collard gave instructions to search. Now at this point it is somewhere between 2 and 2.07. How far do you think Jack could have walked in a 15/20 minute period before anyone starts questioning people? He could have been back at Berner Street and then some. So, the police do their search, do you think they could have possibly caught up with Jack? By the time they've questioned others and searched yards etc, he's even farther away. No chance. I know, I know the apron is there. But the point is that in all of these murders, he has the time to be well out of the scope of their search by the time they begin to conduct the search. The apron is a tricky one. Has a theory been advanced suggesting Jack didn't place the apron there?

[Phil H]

Halse and Collard gave instructions to search. Now at this point it is somewhere between 2 and 2.07.

I am always sceptical of timings in the JtR case. Watches, when worn were not always reliable or told the same time as the next man's watch. Timings HAVE (IMHO) to be approximate only.

How far do you think Jack could have walked in a 15/20 minute period before anyone starts questioning people?

Unanswerable. It depends on his mood after the killing and the extent of bloodstains on his person. He could, if relatively untouched by blood and cool in temperament, have drifted back to the murder scene to mingle with any crowds (for all I know).

He could have been back at Berner Street and then some.

Why "back" at Berners St? Had he ever been there before? Not if Kidney (or someone else) killed Stride. I agree he could have been far away - but depending on where he lived, that might not have been that far.

The apron is a tricky one. Has a theory been advanced suggesting Jack didn't place the apron there?

Why is a theory needed? Occam's razor - simplest explanation is probably the right one - would simply state, the apron scrap was left on a reasonable, direct route from the Square. It was probably discarded once "Jack's" hands were clean (bit for those who believe it, or was left to draw attention to his scribble).

Any other theory surely depends on a conspiracy of some kind - two people. Where is the need for that?

I have seen in argued on here (maybe before the "crash") that apron scrap could have been discarded in Goulston St and have "blown" into the doorway, but I don't think that explanation ever gained much support. In any case, it still puts "Jack" on Goulston St, just divorces it from the graffito.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am always sceptical of timings in the JtR case. Watches, when worn were not always reliable or told the same time as the next man's watch. Timings HAVE (IMHO) to be approximate only.

If anyone is going to get it right then it's a policeman with a watch. If we're going to argue against any proposition on the strength that 'they could have been mistaken, even though we could never prove that' then there's not a great deal of point in pursuing any witness statement.

Why "back" at Berners St? Had he ever been there before? Not if Kidney (or someone else) killed Stride. I agree he could have been far away - but depending on where he lived, that might not have been that far.

The point I'm making is that it took 12 minutes to get to Berner Street. That's how far away he could have been at the very least before the search was undertaken. In other words, this man was long gone before the search began, thereby rendering the search of limited use.

[Scott Nelson]

Next to the weighing machine on De Chirico Street.

[Lechmere]

The timing of when the apron appeared is the mystery. My favoured explanation is that it was there earlier (i.e within 5 or so minutes of the murder) but simply wasn't noticed and the beat PC didn't want to admit that he had missed it - perhaps he was shirking. Other explanations tend to be very convoluted, and in my opinion less likely than a simple mistake on the part of the PC.

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood:

Just as a side point, do you think there’s any possibility at all that the locals, vigilantes and perhaps even the police were scared to approach even a man they considered suspicious enough to be JTR? Given the descriptions of him that had been circulating and the normal public hype about such things, I think it likely that there would have been witnesses who saw suspicious individuals but just let it slide for fear of being the next one to go ‘under the knife’ if they attempted an intervention…

You also raise another interesting point, how does one judge a suspicious character worthy of stopping and searching? There’s no way they could do that to everybody and especially not at night time when it’s that much easier to be inconspicuous.

But then that could also be another mark in favour of Jack knowing his territory well and knowing how the average East Ender would react…..look at Israel Schwartz. Or Joseph Hyam Levy.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

Fleetwood,

My point about timings is simply this, synchronisation of chronometers was unlikely in late Victorian times, relatively few people carried watches (especially in the east End). Thus they guessed at the time (more or less inaccurately, and often based on clocks striking etc and ajudgement on how much time had elapsed. Even those with watches might be "fast" or "slow". Indeed the whole idea of "time" as something fixed was only about a generation old - standard time came in with the railway timetable.

So (and this is merely a personal prejudice, but I think a reasonable one) I tend to be scornful of proposed scenarios based on a detailed and artificially (spuriously?) accurate assessment of elapsed time. It simply won't wash.

When you write:

If we're going to argue against any proposition on the strength that 'they could have been mistaken, even though we could never prove that' then there's not a great deal of point in pursuing any witness statement.

That may be unfortunate for you and your way of thinking, but perhaps regrettably we DO have to dismiss many so-called witness statements or at least assess them for their value in the usual historical way).

Sorry to disagree so strongly,


Phil