Where did the Ripper likely live?

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood:

Just reverting to your earlier response to my last post, yes, you do make some good points and are quite right that the risk was minimal that Jack would be pulled up on the streets. However, the attitude in the East End at the time was a fickle one - it took only one person to scream out "Jack the Ripper!" or "Leather Apron!" and there'd be a lynch mob on the persons tail. Look at John Pizer.

So it didn't have to be a policeman, necessarily - yes, the risk was minimal, but the risk was there just the same, and attitudes could change as quickly as a click of the fingers.

It's also a good argument for why he may have used thoroughfares as opposed to quiet streets and alleys in order to affect his escape and return to his residence, as the numbers of police on the streets at the time, even with the excess numbers, could not possibly have checked everybody in the busier areas even if they had made the effort to do so.

But aside from all that, it's still difficult to believe that if he was a genuine local, unless he spent his entire life indoors and alone, that nobody ever would recognise him - friends, workmates depending on his occupation, etc - especially if he was using the thoroughfares! So it works both ways there.

Cheers,
Adam.

Adam,

Yes, of course there was a risk.

JTR couldn't dictate which policemen he came across, and by their very nature some policemen would have at least stopped him. It appears, though, from the testomies of the policemen on the beat in the area, they were more concerned with finding nightwatchmen, doctors or other policemen and thee types were in the majority. Did any of the police on the beat in the area stop and search anyone?

There is a very good chance he was seen in the area. A decent chance he was recognised. But then what? There must have been completely innocent men in the vicinity, and we know that from Stride's murder, but no one came forward to identify them as being in the area. Tells a story. Probably something to do with the people of East London looking out for a lunatic or not looking/interested at all rather than some fella walking down the street as per usual.

And the vigilantes: by the time they're on the scene he's long gone, and what were they looking for? A mad man?

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood:

Just reverting to your earlier response to my last post, yes, you do make some good points and are quite right that the risk was minimal that Jack would be pulled up on the streets. However, the attitude in the East End at the time was a fickle one - it took only one person to scream out "Jack the Ripper!" or "Leather Apron!" and there'd be a lynch mob on the persons tail. Look at John Pizer.

So it didn't have to be a policeman, necessarily - yes, the risk was minimal, but the risk was there just the same, and attitudes could change as quickly as a click of the fingers.

It's also a good argument for why he may have used thoroughfares as opposed to quiet streets and alleys in order to affect his escape and return to his residence, as the numbers of police on the streets at the time, even with the excess numbers, could not possibly have checked everybody in the busier areas even if they had made the effort to do so.

But aside from all that, it's still difficult to believe that if he was a genuine local, unless he spent his entire life indoors and alone, that nobody ever would recognise him - friends, workmates depending on his occupation, etc - especially if he was using the thoroughfares! So it works both ways there.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fleetwood Mac]

FM, do you not recall that the police even checked Barnett's clothes for blood?, and he was not a suspect, he walked in as a witness.
Does that brief example not suggest to you that the police knew what to look for, and acted accordingly?

Regards, Jon S.

No, Jon. I think that would have been an obvious policy for a man known to her.

I'm not saying the police didn't know what to look for.

But I am saying that the inquest testimonies tell us that the police on the beat spent a lot of time running around fetching other police and doctors but not actually emptying pockets. I do recall a search of Mitre Square and its immediate environs taking place; I'd hazard a guess that this was to check if someone was in hiding.

Why the police didn't empty pockets is open to debate. Perhaps they didn't have organs on their mind; perhaps they didn't fancy challenging a man with a knife.

Look at Cross, Goulston Street etc, the lack of people identified by witnesses, the like of Blotchy and Sailor who disappeared without trace; and, ultimately, the lack of getting anywhere near apprehending the killer - and you have a situation that tells us that the police had a difficult job on their hands. You didn't have to be particularly cunning or local in the East End of London. Someone, completely innocent and local, must have been in the vicinity just after the murders - but no record of a local man identified by a witness and asked to account for his actions.

Now, according to Levy, our sailor was a rough looking fella, or perhaps a 'suspicious character'. Why did he disappear without trace? Answer, he didn't. He walked down the street and was just another fella who had been out in the pubs and was now looking for a lodging house (or something like that).

Applying reason to this, which is the best bet:

a) Ducking in and out of doorways and sneaking around in warrens to avoid people in the street? Once seen then you really would have aroused suspicion.

b) Bluff it out. Walk down the street like the next man.

I know which I'd go with.

[Fleetwood Mac]

How about the soldier questioned by PC Barrett close to what would prove to be the Tabram crime scene?

They could if a search of the man's pockets turned up a sharp long-bladed knife and sundry human body parts.

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.

[Wickerman]

FM, do you not recall that the police even checked Barnett's clothes for blood?, and he was not a suspect, he walked in as a witness.
Does that brief example not suggest to you that the police knew what to look for, and acted accordingly?

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

What constitutes a suspicious character?

How about the soldier questioned by PC Barrett close to what would prove to be the Tabram crime scene?

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?

They could if a search of the man's pockets turned up a sharp long-bladed knife and sundry human body parts.