Local Knowledge

[Herlock Sholmes]

How much of an advantage would it have been for the ripper to have had local knowledge and should we see it as an important criteria when we try to build up a picture or profile of him?

A first point would have to be that the killer would surely have been reliant on the local knowledge of the victims who plied their trade on those streets. They tended to keep to the same areas and so they knew the safest spots and would have known the streets that were patrolled by beat Constable’s (possibly down to at least some of the timings). This couldn’t be said for the killer though. There’s no way that he would have been aware of police beats at the varied locations of his murders. It would have required a feat of memory similar to London taxi drivers ‘The Knowledge.’ And how could he have known to which spot the victim would take him? He couldn’t possibly have known every nook and cranny, every court and alley. And at the height of the murders wouldn’t these women have been just a tiny bit suspicious if the client had insisted on a location of his choice, and one that she wasn’t familiar with?

The second point is knowledge of potential escape routes. Is this really such an important point? Sadly these women were the ideal victims as we all know. The killer knew that they would have taken him to a relatively secluded spot where he was likely to get a good few minutes head start before the body was found. It’s difficult to imagine him expecting to duck and dodge down unknown streets and alleys to avoid the police. The killer would have known where he was headed after each murder so basically all he’d have needed was his bearings. A general idea of where he was going and roughly how to get there (probably intending to aim for a few main streets as a guide)

In short, I don’t think that local knowledge was anywhere near as important as it’s sometimes considered. A basic sense of direction would have told the killer how he’d arrived at that final spot and so the return would have been obvious and not far and you can walk around a quarter of a mile in 5 minutes. If a body was discovered and the Police were sent for, the chances of rounding up an unknown suspect half a mile or more away from the scene are about as close to nil as possible.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I have always believed that the women had their "beats", and chose their own little nooks. A prostitute would hardly patrol an area where she didn't have somewhere to do the deed. On this basis, she would probably know the local coppers and their movements too. I think JtR was probably a local man with at least a fair knowledge of the area, enough to be aware of his escape route in advance, but I don't think that needed to be any better than that of any local resident. If he wasn't a local man, he was probably very fortunate to always evade the law!

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple of added points. I’m not for a minute suggesting that the killer couldn’t have been a local man or that a local man would be a less likely suspect for being just that and I’m certainly not trying to reduce the possibility of any individual suspect (so definitely no, this is nothing to do with Cross, it’s about an unknown, unnamed killer.)

If we can suggest that the killer, who remained at liberty as far as we know, took steps to avoid detection leaving him free to continue might not one of those steps have been to kill in an area where he wasn’t known? It hardly requires genius to realise the benefit of being unknown. Being spotted near to a murder site and being vaguely described by a witness late at night in a poorly lit street can’t have been as great a risk as having a witness say that the man looked like Fred Smith, or a bloke who drank in The Princess Alice or a man who had been seen as a client of Amy Thompson. I’m not suggesting that the killer travelled down from Newcastle or Arbroath but he might not have been a Whitechapel local.

[Patrick Differ]

I think the risk is higher if the killer is not local. Especially after the Chapman murder as the Police were on high alert for anything out of place. Habits are normal so that would help the Police in identifying locals. All the murders happened off of main thoroughfares-Whitechapel High St and Commercial Street and Road. There was traffic on these so blending in would not have been hard.
As you point out the killer was likely on his way home and possibly already home by the time the first whistle or alerts were given. During the attacks the metro appeared to be on a 30 minute beat cycle and London City a 15 minute beat. This is more like playing Russian roulette as they started varying the routes.
The Eddowes Murder was the only murder in the London City jurisdiction. Yet the London City police entered as far as Goulston Street and Metro didn't know they were there? Where was this killer from 1:45 until 2:45 am when the Eddowes Apron and Grafitto were found? A logical assumption would be a local playing cat and mouse. It does not mean it was but it seems more likely.
Stride worked a specific area it was recorded. I agree that the Victims led the killer to a known spot to apply their trade. The killer appeared to know how to " negotiate " if we are to believe eyewitness. He had charm would be a fair guess.
I think Eddowes points to a local or someone with lodgings between Mitre and Goulston.

[Patrick Differ]

Point of clarification on Police recognizing locals. A non local could possibly draw attention to Police who were the eyes and ears of their beat. They had a code that was pretty specific regarding their own accountability. If the killer was local and typically about for those early morning hours would he be ignored, greeted or stopped? Likely not the latter.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, locals had a natural right to be in the East End, but outsiders needed a good reason, and might automatically attract suspicion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good points, but would the police really have recognised everyone. They would have seen faces that they hadn’t seen before all the time. Plus by the time that the killer might have been seen there would have been a good chance that he wouldn’t have been given a second glance. If a Constable walked past 30 men going about their business during one morning and on the morning of a murder he passed the killer (let’s say half a dozen streets away from the murder location) was that PC really going to be thinking “that guy I saw an hour ago was a stranger”?

[Duran duren]

All so far are good points, if not a Whitechapel local, then where do you think HS?

[Tani]

I think local knowledge plays a part in as much as the prostitutes would have had it. I think this explains the knowledge of police beats; if sexual encounters took <5 minutes then that was also enough time for the Ripper to do what he wanted, and the floosy would have been able to say where would have had that amount of time free (for example, Mitre Square). This wouldn't have worked so well in the case of, say Bucks Row, but that might not have been the location chosen by Polly, but on the way, and Ripper found it convenient at that moment.

Local knowledge would have have been good for pubs and who frequents them. The Ripper also seemed to be able to scout women who were very down on their luck, even for prostitutes (drunks, little to no family, no or on/off boyfriend etc). This kind of gossip would have been useful, no doubt.

But I think the main benefit of local knowledge, at least in this place at this time, would have been gangs. Gangs were all over the East End and it's likely many knew Ripper, but none would have squealed since he could have squealed equally loudly. The police were not well liked in the East End so the locals almost preferring to keep quiet than tell them and reveal their own secrets (cf Emma Smith, she likely didn't tell police due to her own crimes and her knowledge may have implicated her). There was no witness protection such as we have now, only pardons really, and those were hit and miss. I believe it may have been local knowledge that actually ended up shielding the Ripper.

[etenguy]

I think the murderer was local and whilst all the points in this thread are valid, what makes me think the murderer was local is his apparent knowldge of police beats (directions as well as timings). I guess it is Catherine Eddowes murder where that is most pronounced, but Nichols too. It is less the case with Chapman, Stride and Kelly.

[Georgeb]

Hi folks.
Was wondering how many people would have been about at any given time of night. We have policemen on their beats, undercover policemen and some dressed as women. We have various committee groups patrolling the area along with reporters. There were the prostitutes, the drunks leaving pubs and after a while people going to work. I always imagined the place deserted but now it sounds as though there was at least a steady stream of people.
That being the case someone could know the area without necessarily being of the area. In that you could roam about and not seem overly suspicious.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

This is an excellent post and for my two cents, I believe local knowledge to be extremely important. I think we all agree that, local or not, the Ripper had more than his share of the Devil's own luck! Take the Chapman killing, for example. How many windows were overlooking that back yard? And let's accept the hypothesis that Chapman was murdered at approximately 5:30am. At that time, it was dawn/daylight... in the backyard of a house with 17 residents....and nobody sees or hears a thing?!! (Not counting the guy who heard a thud on the other side of the fence) He could have easily been discovered by some random bloke going to work. And this house was very near a busy market street! Had I been the Ripper, I would never have killed Chapman in that backyard with only one entrance/exit; I would have taken her in the throughway to the backyard, dispatched her, claimed my trophies, and buggered off. It would have been light enough, I think, to see, but dark enough to scarper if someone came down. I certainly would not have killed her in a yard overlooked by numerous windows, in full view of God and Man. Had she been killed earlier, then the point is moot and it would be a safer environment. But he still took a hell of a risk!

I digress...

We all know that the victims accommodated their killer by leading him to places they felt were safe to conduct business; however, Bucks Row was completely out in the open, and Berner Street was evidently busy, with Dutfield's Yard offering some privacy, but only one way out (if I am incorrect, please let me know, but was there another way out? I seem to remember reading that the Ripper had a close call and scarpered out of Dutfield's Yard only after Louis D. went into the club to summon assistance. Was there another way out? My memory lags). My point is that, local knowledge or not, Jack The Ripper didn't seem to give a flying fig about the possibility of being caught; I theorize he was so into his own pathology that normal survival instincts failed to kick in and he tossed caution to the wind. If you simply want someone dead, you don't risk the time it takes to do this. And if you're happened upon, you better know exactly where to run to and right quick, lest you be set on by an angry mob or vigilance committee.

I believe the Ripper was a local, and someone who blended in so well, his very presence would have escaped much notice, yet he appeared normal enough/was casually familiar to the victims that he could pass as a punter. In modern American parlance, in the survivalist communities, he would be what we call a grey man: someone who blends in so well that his mere presence in an area at any time of the day/night fails to draw any attention.

If you'll permit me to speculate, I'll talk about the crime scene which bothers me most: Mitre Square and the GSG. Much is made about how the Ripper narrowly escaped detection because two constables had overlapping beats in/near Mitre Square, in 15-minute increments. As someone who has done countless walking patrols of the prison and now the hospitals, I can assure you that NO ONE is that precise - or honest - to claim that they unwaveringly fulfilled their missions in the time demanded of them. People are human; people get lazy and complacent. It has happened to me and happens to the best of us. We only have the constables' words that they made their rounds in a timely manner, and there is no way to independently corroborate that they were being honest. It's easy to stop for a few minutes and get into conversation with a pretty girl, a friend, a trader you know, etc. Not saying the constables were dishonest, but if they did this and admitted to it afterwards, they may well have lost their jobs: better to say they were there at such and such a time and credit the Ripper with Ninja-like stealth and speed. I find it easier to believe one or both of the constables popped into Kearley & Tong's for a spot of tea (or stronger) with the night watchman/former cop, giving the Ripper more time at the scene, than believe in his impeccable timing. Being a local and able to give a good accounting for your presence would serve the Ripper well if challenged.

We know that the Ripper headed back east after the murder of Eddowes. And that he took with him a bloody and fecal-infused piece of her shawl. The main reason for this seems to be, "he wiped his knife with the apron and dropped it in the alley in Goulston Street." WHY? The Ripper could have cleaned his knife and hands simply by wiping them on the body of Eddowes, the work of a few seconds. If we presume he already had a container in which to keep his trophies, then why hang on to a filthy - and incriminating - piece of evidence at all? If caught, that cloth puts the noose around his neck. It's about a 7-minute leisurely walk to Goulston Street from Mitre Square, 5 if you're hurrying (I did it in 10, but I am fat and slow). But the hue and cry had already been raised after the Stride murder, and the risks were palpable. So why did he hang onto the shawl? I theorize that the Ripper injured himself while mutilating Eddowes. It was quite dark in the square, and if he was hurrying and his knife slipped (we're all human), he may well have cut himself badly enough to fashion a temporary bandage to staunch the bleeding. So he dashed off to a place where he knew sanctuary awaited him. If he was able to slow/stop the bleeding, the Ripper probably ditched the apron in the nearest alley. I don't for one minute believe that the GSG had anything to do with these crimes. An injury like this and the fear of perhaps almost getting caught may well explain why there were no murders the entire month of October. A local working man, especially one who makes his living with a knife, could easily come up with an excuse for his injury. I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this or something like it, but I can believe this a lot more than some almost-omniscient killer leaving mutilated corpses virtually under the noses of passing constables. I am convinced the Ripper's local knowledge greatly aided him in these circumstances. If you have made it this far, thanks for your patience!

[Herlock Sholmes]

All so far are good points, if not a Whitechapel local, then where do you think HS?

I don’t have any fixed idea that the killer wasn’t a local man DD. He could well have been. My thinking is that I don’t think that we should assume that he was. If any of us was thinking of murdering a series of people and they all came within a fairly small area would we select an area where we ourselves lived? We are familiar these days with the concept of the roaming serial killer because of the fact that we are more mobile but, as I said earlier, I’m not suggesting a killer travelling huge distances, maybe a mile or two. After all, the lower classes then did far more walking than we do so a walk of a mile or two would have been nothing new.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi folks.
Was wondering how many people would have been about at any given time of night. We have policemen on their beats, undercover policemen and some dressed as women. We have various committee groups patrolling the area along with reporters. There were the prostitutes, the drunks leaving pubs and after a while people going to work. I always imagined the place deserted but now it sounds as though there was at least a steady stream of people.
That being the case someone could know the area without necessarily being of the area. In that you could roam about and not seem overly suspicious.

Hi George,

There’s also the possibility that the killer didn’t live in the area but had reason to visit regularly, perhaps for work. Or maybe he used to live there (maybe born there) but moved away, retaining the local knowledge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is an excellent post and for my two cents, I believe local knowledge to be extremely important. I think we all agree that, local or not, the Ripper had more than his share of the Devil's own luck! Take the Chapman killing, for example. How many windows were overlooking that back yard? And let's accept the hypothesis that Chapman was murdered at approximately 5:30am. At that time, it was dawn/daylight... in the backyard of a house with 17 residents....and nobody sees or hears a thing?!! (Not counting the guy who heard a thud on the other side of the fence) He could have easily been discovered by some random bloke going to work. And this house was very near a busy market street! Had I been the Ripper, I would never have killed Chapman in that backyard with only one entrance/exit; I would have taken her in the throughway to the backyard, dispatched her, claimed my trophies, and buggered off. It would have been light enough, I think, to see, but dark enough to scarper if someone came down. I certainly would not have killed her in a yard overlooked by numerous windows, in full view of God and Man. Had she been killed earlier, then the point is moot and it would be a safer environment. But he still took a hell of a risk!

I digress...

We all know that the victims accommodated their killer by leading him to places they felt were safe to conduct business; however, Bucks Row was completely out in the open, and Berner Street was evidently busy, with Dutfield's Yard offering some privacy, but only one way out (if I am incorrect, please let me know, but was there another way out? I seem to remember reading that the Ripper had a close call and scarpered out of Dutfield's Yard only after Louis D. went into the club to summon assistance. Was there another way out? My memory lags). My point is that, local knowledge or not, Jack The Ripper didn't seem to give a flying fig about the possibility of being caught; I theorize he was so into his own pathology that normal survival instincts failed to kick in and he tossed caution to the wind. If you simply want someone dead, you don't risk the time it takes to do this. And if you're happened upon, you better know exactly where to run to and right quick, lest you be set on by an angry mob or vigilance committee.

I believe the Ripper was a local, and someone who blended in so well, his very presence would have escaped much notice, yet he appeared normal enough/was casually familiar to the victims that he could pass as a punter. In modern American parlance, in the survivalist communities, he would be what we call a grey man: someone who blends in so well that his mere presence in an area at any time of the day/night fails to draw any attention.

If you'll permit me to speculate, I'll talk about the crime scene which bothers me most: Mitre Square and the GSG. Much is made about how the Ripper narrowly escaped detection because two constables had overlapping beats in/near Mitre Square, in 15-minute increments. As someone who has done countless walking patrols of the prison and now the hospitals, I can assure you that NO ONE is that precise - or honest - to claim that they unwaveringly fulfilled their missions in the time demanded of them. People are human; people get lazy and complacent. It has happened to me and happens to the best of us. We only have the constables' words that they made their rounds in a timely manner, and there is no way to independently corroborate that they were being honest. It's easy to stop for a few minutes and get into conversation with a pretty girl, a friend, a trader you know, etc. Not saying the constables were dishonest, but if they did this and admitted to it afterwards, they may well have lost their jobs: better to say they were there at such and such a time and credit the Ripper with Ninja-like stealth and speed. I find it easier to believe one or both of the constables popped into Kearley & Tong's for a spot of tea (or stronger) with the night watchman/former cop, giving the Ripper more time at the scene, than believe in his impeccable timing. Being a local and able to give a good accounting for your presence would serve the Ripper well if challenged.

We know that the Ripper headed back east after the murder of Eddowes. And that he took with him a bloody and fecal-infused piece of her shawl. The main reason for this seems to be, "he wiped his knife with the apron and dropped it in the alley in Goulston Street." WHY? The Ripper could have cleaned his knife and hands simply by wiping them on the body of Eddowes, the work of a few seconds. If we presume he already had a container in which to keep his trophies, then why hang on to a filthy - and incriminating - piece of evidence at all? If caught, that cloth puts the noose around his neck. It's about a 7-minute leisurely walk to Goulston Street from Mitre Square, 5 if you're hurrying (I did it in 10, but I am fat and slow). But the hue and cry had already been raised after the Stride murder, and the risks were palpable. So why did he hang onto the shawl? I theorize that the Ripper injured himself while mutilating Eddowes. It was quite dark in the square, and if he was hurrying and his knife slipped (we're all human), he may well have cut himself badly enough to fashion a temporary bandage to staunch the bleeding. So he dashed off to a place where he knew sanctuary awaited him. If he was able to slow/stop the bleeding, the Ripper probably ditched the apron in the nearest alley. I don't for one minute believe that the GSG had anything to do with these crimes. An injury like this and the fear of perhaps almost getting caught may well explain why there were no murders the entire month of October. A local working man, especially one who makes his living with a knife, could easily come up with an excuse for his injury. I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this or something like it, but I can believe this a lot more than some almost-omniscient killer leaving mutilated corpses virtually under the noses of passing constables. I am convinced the Ripper's local knowledge greatly aided him in these circumstances. If you have made it this far, thanks for your patience!

Good points.

You could post the part about Mitre Square on a Mitre Square-related thread HIB. The subject always gets discussion going. Your suggestion that the killer might have injured himself has been proposed and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable possibility. I may be wrong but I seem to recall Paul Begg mentioning it on here at some point. Trevor Marriott has other ideas though.