Where did the Ripper likely live?

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[Scott Nelson]

Next to the weighing machine on De Chirico Street.

[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.

[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