Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    not sure if you saw my earlier post but i like blotchy too... i think hes one of a handful of suspects that are the most valid. i agree, i think he chats them up and most likely lets them lead him to the spots. the peaked cap man seems to spend a considerable amout of time with stride. the ripper and kelly seemed to have possibly known each other, or at least he knew her..as shes the only one murdered in her place.

    re blotchy..not only the man who attacked ada wilson, but lawendes man is described as having fair hair, and i guess blond is closer to reddish hair than dark brown. i beleive the man seen by mrs fiddymont at the pub was also, blond or reddish hair? if not theres some story of a man with reddish hair being followed. im going on memory here so may be wrong.

    however, i disagree with your last sentence. i think he is seen but dosnt care too much as long as he isnt recognized.
    He could well have been quite charming. Maybe he allows them to let him to the murder locations, knowing exactly where they are taking him. Knowing exactly how long he has to commit the act and how he is going to escape.

    I agree about him not caring about being seen. Seeing old pictures from the time a lot of people looked very similar. I think he could easily move about not being properly known or only vaguely so, maybe using different names here or there.

    From this whole saga we only know the names of a select few people and that is only through their interactions with the press, police or courts. For all we know all of the victims could have interacted with the murderer a some point in the weeks or days before they were killed or he could have been watching/stalking them from a far. As long as he didn't do anything too bonkers, the murderer could well have gone unnoticed.

    Any thoughts on the idea that he could have started out as a peeping tom? I believe that is how Ted Bundy, the Golden state killer and Dennis Raider started out.

    Tristan

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
      That's the difference between seen and noticed. Jack was seen daily, IMO. Noticed? Not at all.
      Totally agree. Think everyone at the time thought that he was some kind of monster or pantomime villian. As practically the first (at least in terms of well documented) serial killer, no one had the least idea, as we do now, that he was just some ordinary, functioning bloke.

      Tristan

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

        He could well have been quite charming. Maybe he allows them to let him to the murder locations, knowing exactly where they are taking him. Knowing exactly how long he has to commit the act and how he is going to escape.

        I agree about him not caring about being seen. Seeing old pictures from the time a lot of people looked very similar. I think he could easily move about not being properly known or only vaguely so, maybe using different names here or there.

        From this whole saga we only know the names of a select few people and that is only through their interactions with the press, police or courts. For all we know all of the victims could have interacted with the murderer a some point in the weeks or days before they were killed or he could have been watching/stalking them from a far. As long as he didn't do anything too bonkers, the murderer could well have gone unnoticed.

        Any thoughts on the idea that he could have started out as a peeping tom? I believe that is how Ted Bundy, the Golden state killer and Dennis Raider started out.

        Tristan
        hi Los
        Thanks-agree with everything you say here. And yes i think there is a very high liklihood he started out as a peeping Tom. It goes with the profile, mindset, escalation and the building up the sick fantasy.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

          Totally agree. Think everyone at the time thought that he was some kind of monster or pantomime villian. As practically the first (at least in terms of well documented) serial killer, no one had the least idea, as we do now, that he was just some ordinary, functioning bloke.

          Tristan
          Forgot to add that this is why I think all the suspects we have are all clearly out of their minds or lunatic because back then they just didn't realise that ordinary people could commit these kind of crimes. The murderer could well have been witnessed doing things that we would now would/could consider to be evidence of a potential serial killer but because there was not the understanding back then, they would have passed unnoticed or unreported.

          Tristan

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            not sure if you saw my earlier post but i like blotchy too... i think hes one of a handful of suspects that are the most valid. i agree, i think he chats them up and most likely lets them lead him to the spots. the peaked cap man seems to spend a considerable amout of time with stride. the ripper and kelly seemed to have possibly known each other, or at least he knew her..as shes the only one murdered in her place.

            re blotchy..not only the man who attacked ada wilson, but lawendes man is described as having fair hair, and i guess blond is closer to reddish hair than dark brown. i beleive the man seen by mrs fiddymont at the pub was also, blond or reddish hair? if not theres some story of a man with reddish hair being followed. im going on memory here so may be wrong.

            however, i disagree with your last sentence. i think he is seen but dosnt care too much as long as he isnt recognized.
            Yes I agree. No one knows him so he moves through the streets unnoticed. But there's a constant theme of some short man with broad shoulders and possibly a sailor's cap. He's seen all over the place. A lot of the time his colouring is described as fair or sandy. I think Lawende says he has an auburn moustache. Wilson describes his blotchy skin as does Cox. It always interested me that he said nothing as he went up the Court with Kelly. I wonder if his accent would give some info away. With colouring like that he could be German or Scandinavian. He could also be Scottish. There's nothing to say definitively that he kills them immediately. So I'm fine with Kelly warbling away until 1.30. I did a thread years ago about the Freudian implications of being led through narrow passageways into broader spaces. And this is true of all murders except Nicholls. I really don't think he fixates on particular locations & waits there. For me it's more like he's seen a lot of places where he'd really like to work. And he checks exits entrances etc for those places. It's more than probable that his victim leads him to these spaces. But I think it's possible that he already recognizes those spaces and knows them well. The only place I don't see him knowing the geography of is 29 Hanbury Street. I'm sure that other Hanbury Street houses as well as #29 had reputations as places that prostitutes could take their tricks. And it's a row of houses. Probably very much like other rows in the area. It wouldn't be hard to guess at that one. However I still think the Chapman killing is the one where he's taken the most risk. There are a number of people in the house. It would just take one late-night or early-morning visit to the loo and he's caught like a rat in a trap. Even if he managed to jump the fence, all that gets him is into another yard.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Chava View Post
              I've always been fascinated by the locations of the killings, as all of them with the exception of Nicholls in Buck's Row take place in broadened out areas which are arrived at through narrow passages. I thought the victims might have self-selected this way as they led their punter to these places. But now I'm wondering if it's possible that The Whitechapel Murderer is a lot more organized than he appears, and perhaps he did what a number of serials have done since, which is scout locations and check on them carefully before committing a murder there. If that's the case, then he would know about prostitutes taking their tricks to the backyard or 1st floor of 29 Hanbury Street. He would perhaps even know the customs of the people living in that house--what time they woke & went out to work etc etc. He may even have visited that back yard. He would know that the Club in Duffield's Yard was raucous and loud until late so that a killing in the shadows might not be overheard. He would know that the warehouse caretakers in Mitre Square didn't venture out at night and that few people were walking in that neighbourhood in the small hours. If Nicholls was the first, he didn't get what he was after. Sounds like he was disturbed probably by the guys who found the body. He may have decided to be more careful in future. And if so, it paid off for him. Which means he might be site-specific rather than victim-specific. He decides it's his night for fun. Hangs around his chosen location. Waits for someone to go--or totter--by. Says 'hallo'.
              Defiantly a possibility scoping out potential murder spots but surely there are a lot more secluded dark alleys byways than say rear of 29- Berner St ?? Mitre Square makes sense for sure! Local knowledge has to be key regards escapes layout of streets-alley ways walls to bound over etc!! A point I have made before maybe he didn’t care being spotted approached would you confront a man wielding a knife attacking some poor woman

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Christian View Post

                Defiantly a possibility scoping out potential murder spots but surely there are a lot more secluded dark alleys byways than say rear of 29- Berner St ?? Mitre Square makes sense for sure! Local knowledge has to be key regards escapes layout of streets-alley ways walls to bound over etc!! A point I have made before maybe he didn’t care being spotted approached would you confront a man wielding a knife attacking some poor woman
                Chances are you'd yell your head off. And I'm not sure how violent our guy would be when confronted by a large Spitalfields Porter. Who may well have had some experience of fighting. By all accounts he's shorter than normal even for those times. Also he's not wielding a fighting blade. His knife is long and quite thin. Works to slit a tart's throat. But isn't the best weapon for combat. All it would take would be one shout of 'The Ripper's here!' and that would get a lot of people's attention.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Chava View Post

                  Chances are you'd yell your head off. And I'm not sure how violent our guy would be when confronted by a large Spitalfields Porter. Who may well have had some experience of fighting. By all accounts he's shorter than normal even for those times. Also he's not wielding a fighting blade. His knife is long and quite thin. Works to slit a tart's throat. But isn't the best weapon for combat. All it would take would be one shout of 'The Ripper's here!' and that would get a lot of people's attention.
                  Not buying your “ he was small- long thin knife scenario “ many smaller men can sure fight and a knife is a knife! That was a passing comment anyhow my main comment was about the locations -scoping them out - local knowledge choosing 29+ Berner St

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Do any of the police beat areas, intersect across murders?
                    This is, if all the relevant police beats were drawn on a map, would there be any intersection of the beats related to any one murder, with any another?
                    If 'no', did the Ripper only want to risk being seen in each area once, by police?
                    Also if 'no', did the Ripper stop because he ran out of areas?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      The Star, Oct 1:

                      The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

                      Who was that man? When did this occur? Where did it occur? Who told the police about it? How did they know it was the to-be murdered woman?

                      Curiouser and curiouser!
                      Same edition, re 'the Hungarian':

                      It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

                      Still think it occurred in Berner St, and after the public-houses had closed?

                      And who do you suppose the 'husband' of the 'wife' might have been? Michael Kidney?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                        On balance, the going to look for police and running towards Grove Street and returning to Dutfield's Yard with Edward Spooner in tow at on or just after 1am appears to be the correct run of events.

                        James Brown appears to corroborate both Diemschutz and Spooner in both what the say and timings given. He got home at about 12:45am and heard the shouts for the police about 15 minutes later. That takes it to about 1am. He's fairly certain he saw Elizabeth Stride alive at about 12:45am. The policeman comes after so has no impact on when Diemschutz and Spooner arrive at Dutfield's Yard. PC Smith doesn't appear to identify himself as that constable and PC Lamb doesn't identify another policeman being there on his arrival, so who is the policeman seen on the corner of Christian Street? If going by PC Smith's beat it should be him but he suggests he arrives after PC Lamb and makes no mention of blowing his whistle. He says he was last in Berner Street about 10 minutes before James Brown. Both mention seeing a man in a long dark coat with Elizabeth Stride. Is the policeman on Christian Street and called for and heard to blow his whistle PC Smith or another constable unaccounted for?
                        Once we bring in Brown's testimony, things get complicated - too complicated for just a balancing act...

                        If a policeman is on the corner of Fairclough & Christian street, and is called to the yard by a man, where is Spooner and lady friend at the time?
                        Same intersection, right?
                        So if the policeman is called (who then heads straight off to the yard), who does the calling?
                        Diemschitz, right?
                        Then how does Spooner get to the yard 5 minutes before any copper (as he tells us), and have a real close look at Stride, before helping PC Lamb close the gates?
                        So that can't be the case!
                        Maybe some other man calls the PC on the corner, and the 3 men - LD, IK & ES - are already (back, in the case of the first 2) at the yard.
                        That is, the man calling the PC is part of another, later search party.
                        That would mean Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky missed seeing a PC on their search, because the PC seen by Brown was not at the intersection (or indeed, anywhere along Fairclough St, East of Berner St) when they passed by on each occasion (Grove St and back).
                        Does that solve the mystery? No, and here's why...

                        Spooner: As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.

                        So the policeman must be there, to blow his whistle which Mr Harris has heard!
                        Furthermore, there can be little doubt about this blowing of the whistle. Evening Standard, Oct 1:

                        Abraham Heshburg, living at 28, Berner-street, said:- "I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. ..."

                        So we would appear to have a major anomaly!
                        It could be that Spooner is making up part of his story - or should I say, another part of his story.
                        But wait - Diemschitz story about picking up a man (and not a PC), corroborates Spooner's story about stopping the "two Jews", and going to Berner St with them.
                        If that part of Spooner's story is false, then so is the corresponding part of Diemschitz story.
                        That would suggest their respective stories are coordinated.
                        That in turn would suggest a hitherto unrecognized relationship between Edward Spooner and Louis Diemschitz, and by extension the IWMEC.

                        As for who the PC on the corner actually was, - not sure. Will try to get back to you on that...

                        BIB - It's not a division of labour. It's how an argument works. You present a contention, it's questioned, you provide answers to those questions in support of your contention. You concede when you are unable to provide an answer to your own argument.

                        An argument is not demanding others answer questions to support a contention that is not theirs to begin with. It's your contention. You provide the answers.
                        As I said, let's think about Edward Spooner. Those questions are there to raise certain doubts about him.
                        They are not me trying to hand you a homework assignment, although I can see how it might come across like that.
                        Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 10-15-2020, 12:47 PM.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          I feel that a more productive pursuit here would be does the killer scope out potential victims? Its clear that this person knew the East End pretty well, so wherever he chose to act he could put together some egress plan, but if he wandered about searching for weak sheep out at night, that is relevant. In the case of Pollys killer and Annies killer we have evidence that suggests both were physically diminished, Polly was very inebriated, and Annie was ill. Does this suggest that he chose weaker targets to ensure his results? If those 2 are case studies, Id say we then have to assess whether the same kind of compromising state is evident in later murders.

                          Only Mary Kelly seems to fit that profile, but the fact that the location suggests he went there intentionally to find her seems to contradict random acquisition based on victims health/wellness status.
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-15-2020, 02:38 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            I feel that a more productive pursuit here would be does the killer scope out potential victims? Its clear that this person knew the East End pretty well, so wherever he chose to act he could put together some egress plan, but if he wandered about searching for weak sheep out at night, that is relevant. In the case of Pollys killer and Annies killer we have evidence that suggests both were physically diminished, Polly was very inebriated, and Annie was ill. Does this suggest that he chose weaker targets to ensure his results? If those 2 are case studies, Id say we then have to assess whether the same kind of compromising state is evident in later murders.

                            Only Mary Kelly seems to fit that profile, but the fact that the location suggests he went there intentionally to find her seems to contradict random acquisition based on victims health/wellness status.
                            He certainly only takes on women he's sure he can overpower. Three of those women were 5'-5'2". I've even seen PM stuff that suggested 'Long Liz' was only 5'2" although official accounts have her at 5'5". However she wasn't in great shape. All of them were ill and they were old by the standards of the time. Kelly is different. I think he only takes Kelly on because she's drunk as a lord. She was a big woman, 25 years old, 5'7" tall and I believe had been known to give a good account of herself in a fight. It fascinates me that he even goes near her. But a level of intoxication has to be one of the things he looks for if not the main factor in his decision. Every one of those women were seen drunk before they were killed.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Chava View Post

                              He certainly only takes on women he's sure he can overpower. Three of those women were 5'-5'2". I've even seen PM stuff that suggested 'Long Liz' was only 5'2" although official accounts have her at 5'5". However she wasn't in great shape. All of them were ill and they were old by the standards of the time. Kelly is different. I think he only takes Kelly on because she's drunk as a lord. She was a big woman, 25 years old, 5'7" tall and I believe had been known to give a good account of herself in a fight. It fascinates me that he even goes near her. But a level of intoxication has to be one of the things he looks for if not the main factor in his decision. Every one of those women were seen drunk before they were killed.
                              The issue with Mary is location Chava. Its inconceivable that he simply stumbled upon her, in her room, in a small courtyard with only 1 exit. Marys killer went to Millers Court to kill Mary...that what the evidence suggests. Do we see that kind of evidence with Polly or Annie....not saying it couldnt have been the case, just that its not within the known facts. They were almost certainly strangers to him. Was Mary a stranger to her killer....again, by the evidence, the circumstances say probably not.

                              And as for drunk....there is evidence that Kate slept herself straight enough to be released, and Liz had no alcohol in her system.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                The issue with Mary is location Chava. Its inconceivable that he simply stumbled upon her, in her room, in a small courtyard with only 1 exit. Marys killer went to Millers Court to kill Mary...that what the evidence suggests. Do we see that kind of evidence with Polly or Annie....not saying it couldnt have been the case, just that its not within the known facts. They were almost certainly strangers to him. Was Mary a stranger to her killer....again, by the evidence, the circumstances say probably not.

                                And as for drunk....there is evidence that Kate slept herself straight enough to be released, and Liz had no alcohol in her system.
                                Here's where we differ. I think 29 Hanbury Street and 13 Millers Court are functionally the same. There's no way out of the backyard of #29 unless you go through the front door. It's fenced off. Yes, maybe a surprised killer could manage to climb a fence or two. But he's ultimately just as trapped as he would be in Miller's Court. Every witness description says the guy was short--around 5'5". He's shorter than the backyard fence. And, yes, he could have bulldozed through it. But that would have taken valuable time if someone--or many people--were after him. However (gets back on hobby horse) both are larger enclosed areas reached by narrow passageways. Like Mitre Square. Like Duffield's Yard... I still believe that's what triggers him. If a tart just takes him to a dark bit under a bridge I think she's safe. But those ladies including Mary Jane chose very similar locations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X