Did Jack the Ripper live in London City jurisdiction?

[JeffHamm]

How is criminal profiling a useful tool? It has been around since 1888 and has failed to identify even a single perpetrator. Either the entire approach is a waste of time or the existing models are inadequate.

"The dichotomous classification of serial killers into either Organized or Disorganized is widely cited and utilized. Yet only one, small-scale, empirical test of such a model can be found in the scientific literature and that study is open to a number of serious challenges. Despite many obvious weaknesses in the clarity and reliability of this typology it is commonly cited as a basis for the production of ‘offender profiles’ to help police investigations and has, on occasion, formed the foundation of some prosecution arguments in murder trials." - Canter, David V., Alison, Laurence J., Alison, Emily and Wentink, Natalia (2004) The Organized/Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Bringing a weapon to the crime scene is organized behavior based on the Organized/Disorganized model. The body displayed in open view is disorganized behavior based on the same model. The model fails when examining the Ripper.

Hi Fiver,

I want to separate this post into two phases, the first is with regards to what criminal profiling is "supposed to do", without getting into whether or not it is able to actually do that, and then in the latter section, address that issue.

With regards to : "How is criminal profiling a useful tool? It has been around since 1888 and has failed to identify even a single perpetrator.", that's a bit unfair. It would be like saying "How is organising people with regards to their relationship with a victim a useful tool? It's been done forever and has failed to identify a single perpetrator." You might say that such organisation of people has identified lots of offenders, but no, it wasn't the act of listing people that identified the offender, but rather, by organising people in terms of social connections to a victim the investigation can search for evidence where it is more likely to be found. It wasn't the "list" itself that identified the spouse as the offender, but rather such listing results in a more efficient search.

Criminal profiling doesn't claim to "identify the offender", so it is hardly a fair criticism to say it hasn't done something it isn't supposed to do in the first place. The goal of criminal profiling is much like listing people with regards to their "social distance" from the victim (spouse, family, friends, co-workers, etc) in that it helps to create an efficient search space. The purpose of a criminal profile is to suggest the "type of person" who is more likely to have committed the offence than some other "type" - basically, what sort of characteristics is the offender more likely to have and what sort of characteristics are they less likely to have, so that during the investigation should they come across someone like that they might warrant a closer look. It's sort of like listing people in terms of social distance, but now the distance is in terms of "fit to the profile", but just because someone might be "a good fit", that doesn't make them the offender anymore than being a victim's spouse makes them the offender. It still requires investigation to find actual evidence one way or the other.

If criminal profiles provide useful information, then over a large set of separate crimes (or separate series of crimes) offenders will be found sooner if the investigation spends time prioritising people in line with the profile compared to investigating people randomly (meaning, without regard for the profile's suggestions).

In short, the utility of profiling is about aiding an investigation with the aim of making the investigation more efficient, not about identifying the individual per se.

Now, does it actually do that?

(this gets to your question of : "Either the entire approach is a waste of time or the existing models are inadequate."

The Canter et al (2004) paper you mention is a very good one, and it nicely demonstrates how the "organised/disorganised" classification is, for lack of a better term, rubbish. And in that regards I think they have nicely demonstrated that the organised/disorganised model is definitely inadequate and not suited to purpose.

The whole area of "criminal personality profiling" is a mess. The data sets are limited (as they point out, the whole organised/disorganised idea is based upon only 36 cases, which is woefully inadequate), and the information from a crime is very hard to quantify (at what point does emptying a purse and searching through the contents become "belongings scattered"? At what number of stab wounds do we have "overkill"? Would the wound to MacKenzie's abdomen count as "mutilation"? etc) and the aspects one is trying to "profile" about an offender are often equally difficult to quantify.

However, despite the vagueness of the information, and having to resort to rather crude classification type measures (overkill - Yes/No, etc) that will be subjective to some degree, what the Canter article does show is that there does appear to be some sort of underlying "structure" with regards to the crimes - certain things tend to co-occur allowing one to place an offence in what looks to be one of 4 categories, or perhaps to place an offence along two dimensions rather than just the one of the "organised/disorganised" idea.

I don't think Canter et al (2004) go on to examine if there is any predictive value of classifying the crime scenes this way. Meaning, if you have a crime scene classified as "Mutilation", are the offenders who committed those offenses somehow different from offenders in the other 3 categories? (doesn't have to be a clean division to be useful, might just be "these offenders tend to be psychotic 3:1 while in the other categories it is more 1:5 (I'm making those ratios up), which means the offender is much more likely to be psychotic than not, but it isn't evidence they must be).

Anyway, I've not done any real research in the area of personality profiling, apart from read the occasional article. While I'm not impressed with the FBI's "model", it is almost never the case that the first attempt to systematize things hits upon the best solution. I do think it is worth pursuing as a research question though, and that there could potentially emerge some useful bits of information. But I also think that until something has been very thoroughly investigated, and then validated, it should not be used in applied situations. Investigations are hard enough as it is, and adding "noise" by the way of a non-substantiated profile doesn't help and can be a distraction.

There might be some work done already that is trying to do this sort of thing. It's been awhile since I've done a literature search to see if there's anything new. But unless that's the case, my own view is that as currently implemented, the personality profiles are not worth much.

Even the spatial analysis stuff, which looks to me to be more useful, has to be viewed with caution and I go to great lengths to point out what it can and cannot do, and what sort of things one has to consider, and so forth. Every test I've been able to do, however, has shown that the routines do narrow down the search area in a useful and informative way. But in no way does the analysis "solve" a case, that is not the purpose, it's purpose is to provide useful information to aid an investigation that helps them search more efficiently - just like listing people in terms of their social distances aids an investigation but does not in and of itself solve a case. Profiling should not make claims of being able to do, or be evaluated as if they are expected to do, anything more than that.

- Jeff

[Patrick Differ]

Fiver you are entitled to your opinion. As I said profiling methods cannot hurt as detectives need every tool in their arsenal and are always advancing use of tools as they develop. I do not have access to or time to say definitively profiling is unhelpful. There are too many crimes. I've heard from friends in the FBI that DNA and Artifical Intelligence are now on the forefront in terms of tools. Douglas did his first pass at JtR in 1988. Back then it was a Systems Analysis approach so a worthy attempt for the time. Still that was 37 years ago. Before Window, the Internet or digitalization of data. In today's World there could be many more categories and methods to measure and hundreds of outcomes.
My attempt in this post was just a general attempt to see what others thought about the demarcation advantage of living in London City v Metro, and especially the relationship between the Police forces.
It appears that City Detectives were dispatched to interview tenants in the Wentworth Street Building. Out of jurisdiction.
Yet it was Charles Warren himself that took over the Goulston Street scene and erased the Graffiti to the objection of the City police. A mistake perhaps but it showed the turf position.

Did the Ripper take advantage of this knowledge? Up until Metro all the killings were in Metro. And the following killing was again in Metro. What do people think this means? If anything?

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver- I believe sometimes you can make an argument too complex and I do not believe anything is unhelpful in honest debates, especially with this topic. There is plenty of data and profiling is a useful tool. Looked at another way, how could it possibly hurt? It's my personal belief that there was organized thinking and these murders met specific criteria he needed to limit his risk. Just my opinion.

How is criminal profiling a useful tool? It has been around since 1888 and has failed to identify even a single perpetrator. Either the entire approach is a waste of time or the existing models are inadequate.

"The dichotomous classification of serial killers into either Organized or Disorganized is widely cited and utilized. Yet only one, small-scale, empirical test of such a model can be found in the scientific literature and that study is open to a number of serious challenges. Despite many obvious weaknesses in the clarity and reliability of this typology it is commonly cited as a basis for the production of ‘offender profiles’ to help police investigations and has, on occasion, formed the foundation of some prosecution arguments in murder trials." - Canter, David V., Alison, Laurence J., Alison, Emily and Wentink, Natalia (2004) The Organized/Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Bringing a weapon to the crime scene is organized behavior based on the Organized/Disorganized model. The body displayed in open view is disorganized behavior based on the same model. The model fails when examining the Ripper.

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Fiver- I believe sometimes you can make an argument too complex and I do not believe anything is unhelpful in honest debates, especially with this topic. There is plenty of data and profiling is a useful tool. Looked at another way, how could it possibly hurt? It's my personal belief that there was organized thinking and these murders met specific criteria he needed to limit his risk. Just my opinion.

[Fiver]

I believe this killer was more organized than not.

I believe the organized-disorganized view of analyzing criminal behavior is simplistic and, at best, unhelpful. The very creation of the mixed category is an acknowledgement of the limitations of this approach. Far too often, broad assumptions are made based on limited data. Criminal profiling has never successfully identified a criminal.

If the entire idea isn't a waste of time, we need to compare individual elements of the crimes to the behaviors of known offenders and see if there is any correlation.

[Patrick Differ]

Agree profiling is one method to possibly answer questions. So is a100 question gap analysis with probability measurement but I think it's possible to have too many variables, especially after 135 years of possibilities.

Was there an advantage for this killer to live outside of Metro?
I believe in the case of how the Police operated ...seperately for the most part..it would have. And the majority of murders were actually in easy walking distance to the City.

I believe this killer knew the area as well as anyone who lived there. If JtR was in his early 30's , and at least one witness is credible, and the killer lived in Whitechapel area their entire 30 plus years, this statement woul be more true than false.

[Scott Nelson]

There aren't enough 'data points' to come up with any meaningful trends, if that's what you're looking for.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Patrick Differ,

I've read a fair number of Douglas' books, and while they are often very entertaining, when one delves into the actual research upon which much of "personality profiling" is based it becomes quite apparent that the sample size is woefully inadequate to draw the conclusions Douglas often presents. While I fully agree that it is important to collect information from actual offenders, keeping in mind they are not prone to be all that truthful, in order to draw meaningful inferences that generalise to other cases a very large data set is required. Much of Douglas' conclusions are based upon interviewing somewhere around 36 offenders. I would hope that number has grown since those days. If it hasn't, then the evidential base is too small to build upon, and if it has then no doubt many of Douglas' original ideas will have turned out to be wrong (that's the whole point of research - to locate the mistakes in our thinking). I'm not meaning that in a disparaging way towards Douglas, he only had the information available to work with after all, but as more data comes in, theory must change when old ideas cease to be supported.

Anyway, as for the apron on Goulston Street, it is possible that JtR lived near that area of course. But another possibility, for example, is that JtR was heading towards Commercial, where he would turn north and exit the area in that direction (going north past Hanbury Street for example). Basically, an escape path like that would mean he starts south of the high priority zone indicated by the spatial analysis routines, passes through it, and continues on his way. In such a case, then the high priority zone indicates the area he tends to enter the crime region, and the path I've suggested implies he enters from the north. In this formulation, the high priority zone probably is picking up more about the common spatial pattern of the behaviours of the victims, while all we know about JtR is roughly a single point of his activities (he ends up around here, but from whence he came is less certain - my "northerly route" is only one of many possibilities after all).

But sticking with that idea, I tend to believe that in such a situation it means he can't live too far north (or at least too far from the area around say the Ten Bells) given Chapman's murder near dawn. That would suggest he decided he could risk the journey from Hanbury Street to home at that hour, and as such that implies his journey home can't be too long.

That "closer to Chapman's murder than on average" mind you, could also be said to fit with living near Goulston Street, so as I say, nothing is definitive from these sorts of analyses but they do provide information that can help narrow down the possibilities. But it takes actual police work to determine if those possibilities are anything more than that, and no investigation should put a priority over any sort of "profile" and actual evidential leads! "Profiles" are suggestions, not evidence.

I've done a bit of research myself in this area, and have even developed my own routines (which work as well as ones used by the police, but sadly no better). One thing I've learned is that how "profiling" is presented with regards to what it does and can do is vastly different from what it actually does and can do. It can provide useful information. It can help spark new ways to consider the evidence, but it cannot tell you definite facts or magically produce evidence.

- Jeff

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.