Local Knowledge

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.