Why Didn’t They Catch Him?

[Mark J D]

... Lechmere is a case in point. As he was identified as a witness he might have been in trouble if he’d have been stopped and taken in for questioning near another murder.

No wonder he legged it from Berner Street, then, after opportunistically slashing a woman he'd just seen being abused in front of a passing witness. He knew the Marshalls at No.64, and the Marshalls knew him: best to just *disappear* ... and let some gaggle of twits make up a story about 'the killer being disturbed'...

M.

[FISHY1118]

So just who was responsible for The Whitechapel murders then? If Jack wasn't involved.

Have you received a reply John Wheat . ?

[Abby Normal]

to me seems like only a crafty street smart local could pull off something like the night of the double event.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I doubt Jack killed on his very doorstep. IE I don't think he lived at 27 Hanbury st, but at the same time he was just another face in the crowd in the teeming masses of Whitechapel and nothing [ unlike say, Pigot ], made him stand out .
Even the most likely of witnesses , Lawende [ in my opinion ] who could pin him to a site and time , and gave a reasonable description, openly said in court that he doubted he would recognise the man again. Jack would know this. He would know they were looking for a man with the nickname Leather Apron. Two soldiers after Martha. And a broad shouldered man assaulted Liz , just before her murder. Do I believe that Jack was any of these ? Nope. And he would know that to. Add in false witness statements like Packers and all that would add to Jacks anonymity .
I doubt Jack would be put off by Mcarthy as well [ even if he knew who he was ] . I think it is more likely that he would be more scared of the hangman's noose, so he chose to kill indoors rather than on the street. Which by now he would surmise would be safer, regardless of who owned the property.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Saw this on a geographical profile site , The red square is where they believe Jack resided [ Flower and Dean Street ], or somewhere nearby .

Regards Darryl

[Fogelpa]

Lots of luck and a police force woefully unprepared to deal with a perpetrator of his kind I reckon. Would he have been caught 10 or 20 years later I wonder? When police procedures became more advanced?

For me this is the 'correct' answer to OP's question. I dont think the police had the right tools back in 1888 to catch that kind of offender,the evolution of criminology had not reached that level yet.The combination of his luck and kind of crimes caught the police completly by surprise. As we have seen in more recent times,even when the police have developed their methods to deal with such crimes,they still can struggle to catch the perpetrator (Zodiac killer et al).

[Damaso Marte]

Catching serial killers was just harder back then. Think of all the serial killers caught today because of fiber evidence, DNA evidence, tire tracks, weapon tracing, etc. None of those tools were available. Cars have been a complete game-changer for serial killers, giving them unparalleled ability to hunt and dispose of victims far from their homes, but it's also been a tool for police: killers can be caught when somebody glimpses their license plate or from the unique make/model of the car they drive.

In 1888, you gotta either catch the guy in the act or get a confession.

The Ripper was lucky, surely. He was extremely lucky that no residents interrupted the Chapman murder, he was lucky he didn't wake up the families sleeping above the Nichols and Eddowes murder scenes, and if he killed Stride let's not even get into all the ways he lucked out there. But I believe he also made his own luck: to me, the fact that he was never caught and left no usable evidence behind tells me he cared about covering his tracks and not attracting attention. Silence, to me, is a hallmark of a Ripper killing and why I've long said that either Israel Schwartz is a liar or Stride is not a Ripper victim. To me it's also evidence that he was sane enough to understand that what he was doing was considered wrong by society.

It's entirely plausible to me that he killed prostitutes not because he had a bias against women of the prostitute class, but because he knew prostitutes could lead him to a dark, secluded area where he could reasonably expect to be alone with them for a few minutes. Though we have no evidence for who chose the murder scenes: as unlikely as it seems we don't actually have any evidence against the idea that, for example, he just ambushed people out of the shadows.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Everyone who discovered a victim was where they were meant to be when they did so. It's no surprise that Lechmere was a local man, walking to his local job, when he spotted that tarpaulin-like object in Buck's Row.

But naturally it would be argued that a killer who was not local would have scarpered, rather than stay to bluff his way out of it, having no good excuse for being there.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I go for ‘the killer scarpered.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock!

You make a valid point.

I'm personally inclined to think that unless "Frank Smith" was seen covered in blood, or indeed acting "a bit shifty" he would probably be safe enough, particularly if he had a legitimate reason to be out on the streets at that time.

I suppose that if he was witnessed and identified in the vicinity of more than one of the murders during the course of the investigation, that could have been a cause for concern, but as long as he remained confident that he was not seen by anyone who could identify him, he would likely feel able to keep killing with impunity.

Hi Ms D,

Lechmere is a case in point. As he was identified as a witness he might have been in trouble if he’d have been stopped and taken in for questioning near another murder.

[caz]

Maybe, but I can’t see any relevance to these geographical points. Serial killers don’t kill in areas of personal interest or connection and this was a confined area so any local is likely to have some kind of ‘connection’ near to a murder location. It’s a case of how far can we stretch things. It’s being stated that he’d have passed directly past Dorset Street which clearly isn’t the case. Likewise Mitre Square which Lechmere might not have even been aware of the existence of. Others disagree of course but the geographical stuff is a non-starter for me as far as connecting Lech to the murders.

Gary B challenged me on this point and I fully accept that I can’t prove it but I still feel that if we knew as much about all other individuals as we know about Lechmere i’m convinced that we would find numerous other men with ‘connections’ however tenuous to all of the murder locations.

Hi Herlock,

Everyone who discovered a victim was where they were meant to be when they did so. It's no surprise that Lechmere was a local man, walking to his local job, when he spotted that tarpaulin-like object in Buck's Row.

But naturally it would be argued that a killer who was not local would have scarpered, rather than stay to bluff his way out of it, having no good excuse for being there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ms Diddles]

The question of local knowledge is one that’s often been discussed and it’s a very fair point but is there a case against the killer being a local? And before anyone says anything I’m not, I repeat not, making this point in an attempt to shoehorn Druitt as it applies to a lengthy list of other suspects too and I’m not suggesting this point as any kind of certainty. Although local knowledge might certainly have been an advantage mightn’t it also have been a disadvantage? In those pre-cctv days they were reliant on descriptions, often inaccurate and taken from a distance in poor lighting, but wouldn’t the danger be that a local might actually have been recognised rather than simply described? Accepted that in the early hours the killer might have considered himself unlucky to have been seen by someone that knew him but it’s not at all impossible. Consider a local exiting Miller’s Court with even a few of the locals still loitering around? Or a local seen walking along Hanbury Street. So might it not have been advantageous for the killer to have dipped in and out of an area where no one or very few people knew him? Man, around 35, about 5’7” medium build, moustache is a bit safer than “oh, I’m sure that I saw Frank Smith walking along Dorset Street looking a bit shifty.”

Hi Herlock!

You make a valid point.

I'm personally inclined to think that unless "Frank Smith" was seen covered in blood, or indeed acting "a bit shifty" he would probably be safe enough, particularly if he had a legitimate reason to be out on the streets at that time.

I suppose that if he was witnessed and identified in the vicinity of more than one of the murders during the course of the investigation, that could have been a cause for concern, but as long as he remained confident that he was not seen by anyone who could identify him, he would likely feel able to keep killing with impunity.

[caz]

No certainties of course Trevor but there were potential sightings. Lawende, Schwartz (if Stride was a ripper victim of course) Hutchinson, Long etc. As you say, an identification wouldn’t have guaranteed a conviction but Lawende for example would have been at least suggestive as you often correctly point out how tight the time frame was. Some might slightly disagree with you in the case of Stride and BS man and cite this as potentially the beginning of a confrontation which led to murder seconds later. I have doubts myself but it’s a point for another thread. Certainly none of the named suspects can be placed at the scenes though with the exception of Lechmere and Hutchinson.

I suppose the police could have had their breakthrough if Mrs Long, Schwartz, Lawende and Mrs Cox [or George Hutchinson] had all picked out the same man from an identity parade!

This is one problem I have with all the named suspects. Which one would come anywhere close to matching more than one of the various descriptions given by those who saw a victim with her potential killer?

Blotchy is the one who interests me, but he has no name.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Jack killed in a very small area which , by the end of the murders was teeming with police, vigilance committee/s and people just on the lookout.
Why stay in Whitechapel ? Particularly with Mary ? Why take that chance, if he wasn't local but frequented the area now and again ?
Why not move to another area if he could get about ?
Seems to me Jack was local and stayed in the only area he knew and perhaps couldn't leave IE Work commitments maybe, and of being of the poorer class

Regards Darryl

Ps I also agree with Wick, once he turned that corner he was just another face in the crowd with normal working class clothes, possibly a long jacket with inside pockets and a cap on .

Hi Darryl,

If the killer was so compelled to carry on, even when everyone was on the lookout for him, then his compulsions could have included picking similarly vulnerable victims, who were to be found in the same few streets - regardless of whether or not he lived or worked on one of those streets. Assuming his feet were not nailed to the floor, he could have gone further afield to escape the heat, local or not, but he'd have been starting afresh in a new hunting ground, and losing the advantage of his familiarity with this one. We just don't know how important it was to him to dominate the streets as well as his victims. Would he have seen it as losing face to shift his operations? Was he like a dictator dominating his own territory, or one who wanted to take over and terrorise another?

A local man, committing his first ever murder, would have been as unfamiliar with that process as anyone coming in from outside. Having said that, I suspect he was used to engaging with Spitalfields unfortunates before he graduated to killing them, and in that regard the main difference would be that only one would walk away from the latter experience. If the vast majority of men who routinely used prostitutes had no fear of ever being identified, I can see how one of them, turned killer, had little to fear either, once he had turned into the next street to disappear in plain sight.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Like crapping on Don Corleone’s lawn.

Sort of!

That said, there are examples of thugs like ‘Squibby’ and others taking on the Dorset Street mafia.

I ask myself how Chapman’s killer would have left the scene if he was a local or a relative stranger and I come up with same answer: exit into Hanbury Street, look surreptitiously right and left, take the quieter looking option, and after a few more left/rights he’d have been pretty much scot free. If he’d lived in Spitalfields all his life or he’d just been dropped in the yard from a space ship, how else would he have acted?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would have thought that knowingly killing someone on Jack McCarthy’s doorstep might have put many off.

Like crapping on Don Corleone’s lawn.