Where did the Ripper likely live?

[bolo]

Hi all,

just wanted to add that I'm not fixated on the local man theory, it just sounds quite plausible to me.

If he was a non-local, how far away from the area where the crimes took place should/could we place him? Does the commuting killer theory or assumption hold any water, and what about the idea of a slumming toff?

In other words, what would be an acceptable alternative to a local man who lived in Whitechapel or Spitalfields for most of his life?

Regards,

Boris

[Phil H]

As has been made clear in many Druitt threads over the years, HE (as a potential "toff" killer, could have had fairly ready access by rail to the East End from Blackheath - BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT HE DID!!

Similarly any resident of London, given public transport of the day (not to mention that capacity to walk long distances) COULD HAVE had access to the streets of Spitalfields/Whitechapel - a train or underground journey, a cab or walking (even horse-drawn omnibus - though I do not know when they stopped running in the evening), could have delivered him to the area comparatively easily.

Buck's Row and Mitre Square, in particular, are very close to underground stations (Whitechapel and Aldgate East respectively).

I think the problem of getting AWAY after the murders would have been the issue, with bloodstains to worry about. The streets were dark, but anyone using the railways might have to traverse better lit concourses and booking halls, and might be noticed by cabbies.

That said, the old Lees story - now discredited of course, had the doctor/"Gull" returning home with bloodstains on his clothing, one assumes by carriage.

Just a few thoughts,

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

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?

Definitely.

I was thinking about this last night - what would I do.

Well, I've been in a situation where I had the choice to leave my home and help someone and put myself at risk - my spur of the moment decision was not my problem.

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.

Adam, I think the clincher is this:

After the Eddowes murder, a search is ordered somewhere between 2 and 2.07am. They start fanning out from the scene. Now, JTR is already potentially at least 15/20 minutes away or in his home. So, how do the police catch up with him when they're busy searching yards and people in the immediate area and all the time JTR is moving further away from the scene?

Someone gave the example of Peter Sutcliffe, think it was Garry. He was stopped on the off chance as opposed to a night the murder was committed. And, whereas Sutcliffe had hammers/rope etc in the van that could connect him to the crimes, JTR would have needed to have been walking round the streets, on a night other than a night of the murder, with organs in his pockets - not very likely - in order to connect him to the crime.

The police had a tough job on their hands. And immediately after the murder the local beat bobbies were concerned with fetching doctors, other police or staying with the body. For the search to have been effective, they would have had to have guessed where the murder was about to take place (by all accounts they did watch certain places, which may suggest they knew the limited use of a search 20 minutes after a murder occurred) and came up lucky.

In terms of suspicious characters: in an area teeming with drunks, ne'er do wells, odd balls, social misfits, out and out lunatics, petty criminals etc - I think they had their work cut out.

[bolo]

Phil,

the blood stains are my main concern here. The killer probably wasn't dripping with blood but there must have been some of it on his clothes, hands or other parts of the body, especially in those cases where he removed one or more organs. Despite the fact that people with blood-stained clothes were a common sight in certain parts of the East End with lots of slaughterhouses an butcher shops, it still would have been very risky for the killer to try and play the innocent passer-by who mingles with the crowd, let alone hangs around the crime scene as a spectator, as blood-stained clothes probably were the #1 reason for being stopped and searched.

Regards,

Boris

[Lechmere]

There were lots of water fountains/ pumps and so forth around so he could easily have washed his hands within minutes of leaving any one of the murder scenes.
I am certain the underground would have closed by at least 1 am – probably earlier.
I find it hard to put a solidly middle class person such as Druitt prowling around the East End on foot looking for victims and then making his escape by foot.

[Phil H]

Bolo

Many men wore comparatively dark/black clothing in the 1880s. Bloodstains might not have shown up against dark cloth (an overcoat or jacket) except when very fresh and "wet".

However, I don't think "Jack" need have been VERY bloodstained - for instance there is not a single report of a bloody footprint (or even a partial one) at any of the murder scenes. This suggests he kept himself, scrupulously, away from pooling blood or drips.

It also appears that he had mastered a technique for slitting the victim's throat so that the blood spurted away from him -again meaning he was not spattered.

That leaves the likelihood (in my estimation) that any staining would have been to his cuffs - shirt or coat and hands as he thrust his fingers into the opened abdomen of Chapman (he did not get so far with Nichols) and Eddowes. (Stride - whether a JtR slaying or not - and MJK are, are I think, different cases.)

One thing that occurs to me is that - if "Jack" were a "toff" (I doubt very much he was, but this is for argument's sake) he would have worn removable cuffs (same with his collar). I suppose it is possible that he could have carried a spare pair of cuffs which he could have used to replace bloodstained ones, discretely disposing of those that were soiled so that he was not found with them on his person.

As I said in my previous post, the most obvious point of danger would be if the perpetrator were exposed to "brighter" light than the darkish streets, which might reveal more than he wished.

But I think the murderer was a local man, probably unaware of what cuffs were, who never emerged from th shadows of the night.

Phil

[Lechmere]

I think the evidence points to strangulation first which prevented spray. There was in all but Kelly but including Tabram, a lack of widespread blood splatter.

[Garry Wroe]

Victims were immobilized rather than killed by strangulation, Lechmere. Thus arterial blood spray was reduced but not 'prevented'. The boundary fence close to Annie Chapman's body evidenced signs of arterial blood spray about eighteen inches above ground level. An almost identical pattern was found at the Miller's Court crime scene, with arterial spray on the partiition wall accompanied by signs of partial strangulation - the ecchymosis observed by Dr Bond.

[Rubyretro]

I find it hard to put a solidly middle class person such as Druitt prowling around the East End on foot looking for victims and then making his escape by foot.

[/QUOTE]

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

[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?????

[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]

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]

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]

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]

Talk about clutching at straws!

I was just joking, no offense meant!