What had to have happened?

[miakaal4]

Just thought I would try and get a debate going over, not what we know happened, but more about what must have happened, but has not been fully explored perhaps. Some of this may be really obvious, but I am hoping that it could rule out some of the suspects, or myths.
1. The killer/s must have had a good knowledge of the area.
2. The Killer/s were not obviously monsters.
3. An ability to blend in with the normal traffic of Whitechaple at that time of day/night.
4. The killer would need to be strong and quick if alone.
5. (This one only a possible) Not well known to locals, not a regular. I base this one on the idea that someone well known would be easier to notice and remember by witnesses.
Please refute the above if you can, or add what you feel is a "must".

[Wickerman]

5. (This one only a possible) Not well known to locals, not a regular. I base this one on the idea that someone well known would be easier to notice and remember by witnesses.

I would offer the scenario that a stranger would be noticed more likely than would a person known to the area. Being able to hide-in-plain-sight is an asset to a killer.

We should also not forget that the citizens of the East End were just as anxious to identify the killer as were the police. Any strangers were immediately looked upon with suspicion.

[Paddy]

What had to have happened.

A great idea to look at the case from different aspects !

I thought as you, and pondered a list of who probably didn't do it to put alongside a chart of who could have.
It may have been done before on the boards, if it has can someone point me to it please?

Well Jack had to have had a very sharp knife with him

Will try and think some more later, too hot at the moment !

Pat........................

[Damaso Marte]

The fact that the killer caused little to no sound, left little evidence, and evaded capture or even sighting despite striking in public tells me that he was aware of his surroundings and knew that what he was doing was wrong. Might not sound like a great insight, but to me it rules out some of the truly insane suspects who have been suggested.

[lynn cates]

knowledge of area

Hello Miakaal. Good idea for a thread. Thanks.

In #1, I think that MUST be true of Mitre sq. Not sure it applies to the rest. However, it would seem that "MJK's" killer had to know how to find Miller's Court--if indeed he did.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

insane

Hello Damaso. Why could not an insane person do all that and yet be oblivious to the import of the action and hence not be morally culpable?

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

Hello Damaso. Why could not an insane person do all that and yet be oblivious to the import of the action and hence not be morally culpable?

I find it implausible that the killer went undetected by chance alone. I think the lack of evidence suggests a killer that covered his tracks, tried to minimize noise, etc.

I don't think somebody who was unaware that what he was doing was wrong would do that.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I'll try my hand despite knowing better currently.

Perhaps a more accurate way to say it is, it lowers the likelihood of the compulsory crazy killer??? Or something along those lines. If yall take my meaning?

[lynn cates]

chatting

Hello Damaso, DLDW. Thanks.

That could be the case if there were only one bloke and we know that all such measures were deliberate.

But, recall that voices were heard around the time of Polly's death and Mrs. Long heard the foreign looking man talking loudly to Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Strangers would stand out in tiny villages, but surely not in the teeming East End, with people of several nationalities coming and going all the time or moving from lodging house to lodging house?

How many witnesses described men they either knew by name or sight, or thought they had seen before? Hardly any, unless you count Hutchinson's flash Harry, whom he thought lived in the neighbourhood. In almost every case they were describing "a man", dressed this way or that, talking this way or that, walking or looking a certain way - in short another perfect stranger. Not one witness was overly suspicious about seeing a stranger with a victim before the event. Not one reported said stranger to a policeman before his victim was found murdered - even at the height of the scare. It seems that the killer was safe as houses if a stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

The East End was a collection of villages, but away from someone's immediate 'village' they would be a stranger to the sight of others but would know the lay out of the streets and alleys.

Uncontrolled nutters who kill invariably get caught almost red handed (literally) immediately after their first attack as they are careless as to their safety and security. They act on impulse.
The chances of such a culprit getting away with two - or more - is negligible in such a crowded environment.

[Phil H]

I think in a milieu such as Whitechapel/Spitalfields in 1888 strangers would certainly have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Oh, all Jews (excpet ones of long habitation in the area or known for specific reasons) might have been considered to look just "foreign" - but I believe (as with English villages fairly recently) the comings, goings and doings of "locals" would have been known and noted (even if subliminally) while a stranger would have been regarded with suspicion and distrust.

The classes in the period looked and acted differently. Local professional people (doctors, lawyers, residents) would have been known as such - but the dress, hair cut, manner, bearing, speech and accent of middle or upper class people would have stood out markedly. Even in "disguise" they would have looked "odd" - their speech patterns, the way they stood and moved would have been quite unlike the working and lower class denizens of the area.

A familiar face might have been noticed but then mentally dismiised by witnesses. An unfamiliar face would have set bells ringing.

Hence I firmly believe that "Jack" was a local, maybe a foreigner, maybe a Yid.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

It seems that the killer was safe as houses if a stranger.

Agreed, Caz. As long as they didn`t behave strangely.

[Wickerman]

Strangers would stand out in tiny villages, but surely not in the teeming East End, with people of several nationalities coming and going all the time or moving from lodging house to lodging house?

How many witnesses described men they either knew by name or sight, or thought they had seen before? Hardly any, unless you count Hutchinson's flash Harry, whom he thought lived in the neighbourhood. In almost every case they were describing "a man", dressed this way or that, talking this way or that, walking or looking a certain way - in short another perfect stranger. Not one witness was overly suspicious about seeing a stranger with a victim before the event. Not one reported said stranger to a policeman before his victim was found murdered - even at the height of the scare. It seems that the killer was safe as houses if a stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

What is not so easy to account for is an unwritten code of keeping your nose out of someone else's business.
When a detective asked a resident who they saw that night, and he says "another man crossed the street", the presumption in our day may be that the resident did not know this man.

The resident though, is not identifying his neighbor because, well, he has no business in naming him to the police and sticking his nose into something where it doesn't belong. But neither is he telling a lie, his neighbor may have been up to something he would prefer the police, or his wife, not to know.

I think this attitude is broadly adopted in the East end, that is to say, "keep your nose clean", and leave it to the police to identify the man.

We may have an example of this with the testimony of Joe Barnett, if you recall in his testimony he chose not to identify the woman who was with Mary when he arrived on the Thursday night, but Maria Harvey admitted it was her.
Clearly Barnett knew Maria Harvey, so why not name her?

Another possible example is the story given by both Sarah Lewis and 'Mrs Kennedy', about them being accosted on the Wednesday night.
In telling the identical story we can determine with no real effort that they were together that night. And, they both headed for the same address on the Friday, so clearly they knew each other, yet Lewis chose not to name the "other woman" she was with. Likewise Mrs Kennedy said she was with her sister, but again, she provided no name.

There are other instances but suffice to say, because a witness does not name someone is not a good indication that they didn't know them, or identify them as locals. I see it as just a reflection of this attitude of keeping your nose out of other peoples business, let the police do the identifying, then there is no comeback on you personally.

[caz]

I think in a milieu such as Whitechapel/Spitalfields in 1888 strangers would certainly have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Hi Phil,

Personally I very much doubt it. The place was teeming with newcomers at all times; the victims themselves had not been in Spitalfields from birth, or anything like it, and there is nothing to suggest they knew each other, by name or sight, despite their proximity, although they may well have passed one another in the street at some point without being any the wiser.

If every 'stranger', minding their own business, had been regarded with suspicion and distrust (during the murders, or before or since) the local population would have made their lives a whole lot harder than they were already.

The classes in the period looked and acted differently. Local professional people (doctors, lawyers, residents) would have been known as such - but the dress, hair cut, manner, bearing, speech and accent of middle or upper class people would have stood out markedly. Even in "disguise" they would have looked "odd" - their speech patterns, the way they stood and moved would have been quite unlike the working and lower class denizens of the area.

To a certain degree yes, but I wasn't really thinking of strangers of a higher class than the average 'local' man. Many thousands of 'strangers' must have fallen on hard times and ended up in the area without immediately making everyone point and scream, like Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

A familiar face might have been noticed but then mentally dismiised by witnesses. An unfamiliar face would have set bells ringing.

Again, the witness testimony would not seem to bear this out. Had Lechmere ever seen Paul or PC Mizen before, when their lives collided on the night Nichols was murdered? Repeat for every murder night and there's a pattern of people observing other people they had most probably never set eyes on before - in the vast majority of cases I would have thought.

Love,

Caz
X