Did Jack the Ripper live in London City jurisdiction?

[Fiver]

He was obviously wrong.

So you'll take the medical opinion of a politician over the medical opinion of an actual doctor? That explains a lot.

[DJA]

Firstly Brown was wrong.The parts taken away were useful.

Secondly,I am convinced that Gull was behind WEG's letter.

[Scott Nelson]

Dave,

At this point, could you please (yet again) run through the process of how Sutton got Eddowes' body to the corner of Mitre Square?

[GBinOz]

Dave,

At this point, could you please (yet again) run through the process of how Sutton got Eddowes' body to the corner of Mitre Square?

Hi Dave,

I join Scott is asking for the details of your theory in this regard.

My understanding is that Eddowes and her husband, Kelly, pawned his boots and spent the money on a breakfast, leaving them both broke. Somehow she managed to acquire sufficient funds or favours to become falling down drunk in Aldgate, near The Three Nuns pub, across from Butcher's Row. After being incarcerated until 1am, she was seen to depart in the direction of Aldgate rather than the direction of her home. Scott produced an excellent dissertation showing news reports of a man and woman leaving the vicinity of Aldgate station and the man returning alone a short time latter.

Over to you Dave (whenever your health circumstances allow).

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Dave,

At this point, could you please (yet again) run through the process of how Sutton got Eddowes' body to the corner of Mitre Square?

Out through the window and through the gate.

She was dead.He could not have operated on her eyelids with a Liston knife in the dark of Mitre Square.

Hence no splatter.

The eyelids would have contained cholesterol.This was research that Gull and Sutton had been doing for a long time.

[DJA]

This explains some of the facial cuts.Way back in December 1867,Eddowes (as Conway) and Nichols were Sutton's inpatients with rheumatic fever until February IIRC.The bottom sinus are the the initial infection site.The Maxillary sinuses discharge in to nose which runs like a tap.

I strongly suspect Sutton was an Aspy. Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia
I know two Aspy's ...... one is the top of his profession health therapist in Victoria,the other a convicted paedophile.

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

I join Scott is asking for the details of your theory in this regard.

My understanding is that Eddowes and her husband, Kelly, pawned his boots and spent the money on a breakfast, leaving them both broke. Somehow she managed to acquire sufficient funds or favours to become falling down drunk in Aldgate, near The Three Nuns pub, across from Butcher's Row. After being incarcerated until 1am, she was seen to depart in the direction of Aldgate rather than the direction of her home. Scott produced an excellent dissertation showing news reports of a man and woman leaving the vicinity of Aldgate station and the man returning alone a short time latter.

Cheers, George

Eddowes might not have been drunk.

The trip back to London and her running around would have played Hell with her rheumatic fever aftermath.

She may have needed to sit down and have a drink.

Back outside and still terribly fatigued,she may have started to collapse.

Note the short period of time it took her to "sober up" and be discharged.

[Scott Nelson]

Out through the window and through the gate.

It's the 'gate' you need to address. Was it a 'gate' or just a wooden partition? If it was a gate, which end was hinged? Did it lock from the Mitre square side or from inside the yard (outside the back windows of the flanking houses)? And why didn't the police mention any locking gate?

If Sutton killed her inside the house and pushed her body out the back window, did he also go out the window? If that's the case, then he would have to unlock the gate from the inside yard to pull her body into the Square. Then he would have to go back inside the gate to lock it and climb through the back window again -- otherwise he had to leave the 'gate' open.

Then he had to perform the larger mutilations before Watkins returned.

If there was a wooden partition instead of a gate in the corner of the square, it was too high to be scaled, especially carrying a body.

I think it's better to theorize that Sutton simply took her out the front door of the house and around the corner.

[JeffHamm]

Was there an advantage for JTR to live in the London City jurisdiction since all the Whitechapel murders, except Eddowes, was in Metro Jurisdiction ?

I'm sure this analysis has been presented here before but as I learn more about the Policing of the time and their habits it definitely played a role in the killers ability to just vanish in their midst. An in truth he was likely always in their midst. How could that be? Here are some numbers to consider regarding location..using the origin of the intersection of Middlesex Street and Wentworth Street. The West side is London City and the East Side is Metro. Walking distances:

Origin to Tabrum murder = 6 minutes
Origin to Nichols = 18 minutes
Origin to Chapman = 10 minutes
Origin to Stride = 16 minutes
Origin to Eddowes = 7 minutes
Origin to Kelly = 6 minutes
Origin to McKenzie = 4 minutes
Eddowes to Nichols = 25 minutes. East to West maximum
Chapman to Stride = 26 minutes North to South maximum
Origin to Thrawl Street = 6 minutes
Origin to Goulston Street = 3 minutes
Origin to maximum distance = 18 minutes
Origin to average = 10 minutes

This is similar to what an FBI profiler would do. In this case living in London City which starts on the West side of Middlesex Street becomes an advantage.

All of the Whitechapel murders except Eddowes were in Metro yet London City jurisdiction was in very close walking distance.

Did Metro and City Police forces cooperate before Eddowes? PC Long and DC Halse never crossed paths at 2:20 am at Wentworth and Goulston Street. This was 35 minutes after Eddowes discovery and 80 minutes after Stride. Yet neither Long nor Halse knew about Stride which was only a 16 minute walk from where the Apron was found.

Assuming the Apron was not at the Goulston location at 2:20 am, where was the killer from 1:44 to some time between 2:20 and 2:55 am? The real timeframe for the killer appears to be a window of 1:44am to 2:55 am or 1 hour approximately. DC Halse was walking the streets and PC Long was walking a beat oblivious to everything until 2:55 am.

What did the killer do? Left a clue in Metro along with a message pointing at the Jewish community. If the killer was smart and he clearly was, why not throw the Police off in the opposite direction of where you actually lived? " The killer went off to his hideout in Metro". It was a smart move.

The double event paints the most vivid picture of law enforcement capability and cooperation in this case. As Metro struggled to capture this killer it was on average a 10 minute walk to leave their jurisdiction.

The murders and hunting grounds were only a short walk to London City. Could the killer have lived outside the 25 minute bubble described above? Yes they probably could.

Could the killer have lived in the London City side between mitre square and Middlesex street? Yes and he would have the perfect hideout in my opinion. Possibly never approached by London City police and no jurisdiction by Metro.

in their midst? Would be the simple answer .

Hi Patrick Differ,

What you're getting at is a spatial analysis of crime locations, often referred to as "Geographical Profiling." There's been discussions on this a number of times, and the underlying mathematics is a bit more complicated than what you've suggested but the underlying idea is similar; it tries to minimize journey to crime distances over the series. Most commonly the journey is described as starting from the offender's residence, but that is not always the case and the locations highlighted by this type of spatial analysis can reflect other "anchor points", such as an offender's workplace, a pub they frequent, etc; basically, a location they are familiar with in their daily lives (that association is what gives them the familiarity with the area, and due to spending time in that area it also means they are more likely to spot potential crime opportunities, so they may go there when looking for victims). There are different approaches, meaning different equations are used, but on the whole they all tend to perform equally well.

One thing to keep in mind, though, what gets produced is a map that ranks areas to search, but it doesn't tell you what to search for, and it also isn't "evidence". You can think of it like how one can rank associates of a victim with regards to their "social distance" from a victim. A spouse is very close, family members are a bit further, friends a bit further out, and so forth. If you look at a large set of crimes, the offender tends to be more likely to be closer than further removed socially, but that doesn't mean being the spouse of a victim is evidence you're the offender! It just prioritises who the police should interview and they need to obtain actual evidence - they are just more likely to find actual evidence if they start with the spouse because, sadly, a spouse is the most common offender so over a large set of crimes they will find evidence sooner by searching the list of people based upon social distance.

With spatial analysis, it's not listing people as a function of social distance, but rather locations. Again, it doesn't mean there must be something in the "highest priority locations", but rather those locations are just areas that indicate where to start looking, and then how to progress the search. But just like knowing a list of people doesn't tell you where they are, just who they are, a list of locations doesn't tell you "who or what to look for" (offender's residence is common, but that doesn't mean that is what it has to be).

The other thing to keep in mind, is that the calculations are effectively looking for commonalities in areas with regards to the locations. Those commonalities, however, may not necessarily be due to the offender but due to spatial commonalities of the victims. For example, in the series of murders committed in Toronto by Bruce McArthur, when one enters the last known location where his victims were spotted, the spatial analysis highlights the street and area of a pub where Bruce commonly went and where he sometimes met his victims. His residence is not within the suggested search zone, nor are the residences of his victims. What his being picked up on is the commonality of the area between the victims behaviour in this case, because what gets entered into the analysis is the victim's locations.

With the JtR series (the areas that get highlighted tend to be in the vicinity of Flower & Dean by some routines, or an area more or less joining the Kelly and Chapman crime locations, which is roughly in the same area). And the crime locations have as much to do with the victim's behaviours and choices as with JtR's. What the spatial analysis may be picking up, therefore, is the commonality of the victims, with JtR's choice really just being to go to that general area looking for victims (similar to Bruce McArthur). It still suggests that JtR probably has some familiarity with the area, just like McArthur did spend time there, but the spatial pattern may be more reflective of the victims than of JtR per se.

If the police of 1888 had this sort of thing, my own view is that the most productive way for them to use that information would be to search the pubs of that area, working out who the regulars are, and trying to determine who might have been there on the nights in question to see if they can find anyone who seems to be in the area until closing on multiple nights in question. Also, to monitor that area looking to see if anyone seems to be wandering around, maybe doing a circuit and so passing through the area on multiple occasions through the night.

But, I would hesitate to presume that JtR lives in the high priority areas for the above reasons. He might have, of course, but there are very good reasons not to jump to that conclusion.

- Jeff

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Jeff- understand your point. I've done alot of professional risk analysis work in cyber and studied FBI John Douglas and other FBI profiling assessments and gap analysis typically associated with profiling. All very similar in construct.
I pose this topic as a Question to draw attention to JtRs ability to escape so easily from Metro and the relationship between these 2 Police forces. I also wanted to get reaction on these distances relative to the Police beat and reaction times and also the Goulston Street clue. Why risk Goulstconstruction.

Ordinarily I would say that this killer could undoubtedly live anywhere and hunt in the area between Nichols to Eddowes and Chapman to Stride, and because of Police habit and procedure ( hear the whistle run to the crime) just move out of the area. However the Goulston Street apron speaks to a very high risk. My view would be why dispose of it all if you were moving away from risk? That, to me, tells me the killer likely lived very close to Goulston Street.

FBI profiler Douglas in 1988 was developing methods still used by the FBI today. One of those was his secondary comfort zone where he said most serial killers who kill in the area they live have this comfort zone. His method is to take the 2nd murder(Chapman) and draw a line to the 3rd ( Stride), then to the 4th ( Eddowes) and then to the 5th ( Kelly) and back to Chapman. This triangle is what FBI profilers use as a step to exercise this comfort zone. In the case of JtR it encompasses Middlesex, Goulston and Thrawl Street as well as Wentworth. It also encompasses the murder Of Tabrum and McKenzie.

I believe this killer was more organized than not. Only because he knew the streets better than the police. Some of which, like PC Long who found the Apron, was actually a fill in from A Division and who had no idea Eddowes was murdered 35 minutes before ( at Goulston at 2:20) and then finding the Apron at 2:55. The comfort zone.

Thank you for the feedback. Valid points.

[GBinOz]

Hi Patrick Differ,

What you're getting at is a spatial analysis of crime locations, often referred to as "Geographical Profiling." There's been discussions on this a number of times, and the underlying mathematics is a bit more complicated than what you've suggested but the underlying idea is similar; it tries to minimize journey to crime distances over the series. Most commonly the journey is described as starting from the offender's residence, but that is not always the case and the locations highlighted by this type of spatial analysis can reflect other "anchor points", such as an offender's workplace, a pub they frequent, etc; basically, a location they are familiar with in their daily lives (that association is what gives them the familiarity with the area, and due to spending time in that area it also means they are more likely to spot potential crime opportunities, so they may go there when looking for victims). There are different approaches, meaning different equations are used, but on the whole they all tend to perform equally well.

One thing to keep in mind, though, what gets produced is a map that ranks areas to search, but it doesn't tell you what to search for, and it also isn't "evidence". You can think of it like how one can rank associates of a victim with regards to their "social distance" from a victim. A spouse is very close, family members are a bit further, friends a bit further out, and so forth. If you look at a large set of crimes, the offender tends to be more likely to be closer than further removed socially, but that doesn't mean being the spouse of a victim is evidence you're the offender! It just prioritises who the police should interview and they need to obtain actual evidence - they are just more likely to find actual evidence if they start with the spouse because, sadly, a spouse is the most common offender so over a large set of crimes they will find evidence sooner by searching the list of people based upon social distance.

With spatial analysis, it's not listing people as a function of social distance, but rather locations. Again, it doesn't mean there must be something in the "highest priority locations", but rather those locations are just areas that indicate where to start looking, and then how to progress the search. But just like knowing a list of people doesn't tell you where they are, just who they are, a list of locations doesn't tell you "who or what to look for" (offender's residence is common, but that doesn't mean that is what it has to be).

The other thing to keep in mind, is that the calculations are effectively looking for commonalities in areas with regards to the locations. Those commonalities, however, may not necessarily be due to the offender but due to spatial commonalities of the victims. For example, in the series of murders committed in Toronto by Bruce McArthur, when one enters the last known location where his victims were spotted, the spatial analysis highlights the street and area of a pub where Bruce commonly went and where he sometimes met his victims. His residence is not within the suggested search zone, nor are the residences of his victims. What his being picked up on is the commonality of the area between the victims behaviour in this case, because what gets entered into the analysis is the victim's locations.

With the JtR series (the areas that get highlighted tend to be in the vicinity of Flower & Dean by some routines, or an area more or less joining the Kelly and Chapman crime locations, which is roughly in the same area). And the crime locations have as much to do with the victim's behaviours and choices as with JtR's. What the spatial analysis may be picking up, therefore, is the commonality of the victims, with JtR's choice really just being to go to that general area looking for victims (similar to Bruce McArthur). It still suggests that JtR probably has some familiarity with the area, just like McArthur did spend time there, but the spatial pattern may be more reflective of the victims than of JtR per se.

If the police of 1888 had this sort of thing, my own view is that the most productive way for them to use that information would be to search the pubs of that area, working out who the regulars are, and trying to determine who might have been there on the nights in question to see if they can find anyone who seems to be in the area until closing on multiple nights in question. Also, to monitor that area looking to see if anyone seems to be wandering around, maybe doing a circuit and so passing through the area on multiple occasions through the night.

But, I would hesitate to presume that JtR lives in the high priority areas for the above reasons. He might have, of course, but there are very good reasons not to jump to that conclusion.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

As you are aware, I hold your opinions in the highest regard. However, sometimes I an sufficiently overcome by your presentations as to having to resort to artificial means of resuscitation. I can think of many epithets to ascribe to you, but taciturn does not present itself as a possibility. I have no doubt that our friendship and mutual respect can survive the odd bagging.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

As you are aware, I hold your opinions in the highest regard. However, sometimes I an sufficiently overcome by your presentations as to having to resort to artificial means of resuscitation. I can think of many epithets to ascribe to you, but taciturn does not present itself as a possibility. I have no doubt that our friendship and mutual respect can survive the odd bagging.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I have many faults but brevity is not one of them! .

- Jeff