Risky kill-sites - how and why?

[Paul Sutton]

Being brand new here, so I apologise if this is very old hat. Also for over-posting. Having thought about joining for years, I've a lot of stuff stored in my bonce!

For all the C5, there seems to have been a high chance of Jack's capture whilst actually ripping. Kelly's a possible exception, but the site was a trap.

No one did see him at work (SBO - statement of the bleeding obvious). They most nearly did in Mitre Square, hence the move indoors? But the Chapman location was also a trap - no obvious escape route. One can argue - he just didn't care, but if so, it kept working.

I've always been bugged by this; the feeling there's something missed, which made the sites far less risky than they appear to us. These are my ideas, in order of decreasing likelihood:

1. An accomplice. Perhaps the riskiest of all sites was Duffield's Yard - and the confusing witness statements (aren't they all?) do circle around two people being involved. Miller's Court and Hanbury Street also seem insane locations without one.

2. A very detailed knowledge of police beat times - leaked knowledge of time windows plus safer locations/weaker PCs? Someone with relatives 'on the force' and who likely fraternised/drank with them.

3. Direct police involvement.

[Paul Sutton]

I'd also add - 4. Perhaps someone with access to many properties (a landlord or their agent) who had bolt-holes all over the place. Maybe he lurked in these, emerging to strike? Knew which were empty at the time.

[Ms Diddles]

I'd also add - 4. Perhaps someone with access to many properties (a landlord or their agent) who had bolt-holes all over the place. Maybe he lurked in these, emerging to strike? Knew which were empty at the time.

That's an interesting idea, Paul!

I hadn't really considered that, although I had speculated that if Jack was also responsible for the torso cases, it could be someone who had a business premises / lock up which he used if in a particular location hence the two different m.o.s.

Welcome aboard by the way!

[Paul Sutton]

That's an interesting idea, Paul!

I hadn't really considered that, although I had speculated that if Jack was also responsible for the torso cases, it could be someone who had a business premises / lock up which he used if in a particular location hence the two different m.o.s.

Welcome aboard by the way!

Thanks, glad to be here.

In the excellent Bank Holiday Murders, the author (sorry I've forgotten name, Tim W?) hints he's a theory about the landlords of the numerous doss houses, and their little gangs. He links it to the Emma Smith killing too. I think the killer was someone very well-known to the victims, and none of them made the link. Someone who could duck in and out of premises.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks, glad to be here.

In the excellent Bank Holiday Murders, the author (sorry I've forgotten name, Tim W?) hints he's a theory about the landlords of the numerous doss houses, and their little gangs. He links it to the Emma Smith killing too. I think the killer was someone very well-known to the victims, and none of them made the link. Someone who could duck in and out of premises.

Tom Wescott.

[Enigma]

Welcome Paul. You have some interesting thoughts. My view is that JtR might have had a working knowledge of the police beats, other than that he was incredibly brazen and incredibly lucky.

I suspect that if there was a likelihood of discovery his inclination was to flee. The lack of mutilations in the Stride murder indicates this. If push came to shove and he was cornered, then he had nothing to lose by turning his knife on a witness.

[Paul Sutton]

Welcome Paul. You have some interesting thoughts. My view is that JtR might have had a working knowledge of the police beats, other than that he was incredibly brazen and incredibly lucky.

I suspect that if there was a likelihood of discovery his inclination was to flee. The lack of mutilations in the Stride murder indicates this. If push came to shove and he was cornered, then he had nothing to lose by turning his knife on a witness.

Thanks for the welcome!

As said, I'm very taken with Tim Westcott's book, and he tantalisingly alludes to some network of just a few landlords who owned most of the grotty lodgings and doss houses. I must dig the book out - he even mentions some boxer with a history of abusing 'unfortunates'. I agree he'd have kebabed anyone - which is another reason not to imagine he'd tag along with Robert Paul. But I don't buy his 'luck' (but cannot deny the efficacy of whatever he did to evade capture). I'm sure there's a hidden element to how he worked, and where.

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks, glad to be here.

In the excellent Bank Holiday Murders, the author (sorry I've forgotten name, Tim W?) hints he's a theory about the landlords of the numerous doss houses, and their little gangs. He links it to the Emma Smith killing too. I think the killer was someone very well-known to the victims, and none of them made the link. Someone who could duck in and out of premises.

Yes, I liked Tom Wescott's books too.

He certainly persuaded me that Tabram should be in the canon where I had previously swithered, and he made me think seriously about Emma Smith's inclusion which I had previously dismissed out of hand.

His research on the lodging house owners is really interesting.

Tom pops up on this forum occasionally.

Personally I pull up short of stating that the killer was very well-known to the victims, but think it's likely that he was a familiar face in the area.

I was interested that you had a soft spot for Richard Patterson's Francis Thompson book.

I read that quite recently, and wasn't at all sold on Thompson as a suspect.

Each to their own though!

[Paul Sutton]

Yes, I liked Tom Wescott's books too.

He certainly persuaded me that Tabram should be in the canon where I had previously swithered, and he made me think seriously about Emma Smith's inclusion which I had previously dismissed out of hand.

His research on the lodging house owners is really interesting.

Tom pops up on this forum occasionally.

Personally I pull up short of stating that the killer was very well-known to the victims, but think it's likely that he was a familiar face in the area.

I was interested that you had a soft spot for Richard Patterson's Francis Thompson book.

I read that quite recently, and wasn't at all sold on Thompson as a suspect.

Each to their own though!

Oh, I think Thompson is pretty unlikely. But certain aspects work - especially for Kelly. But I like the book and the literary link - and the poetry of course!

To me, William Bury (I wrongly called him James in my other post) is the least implausible. I was also, once, taken with James Kelly (hence my mix up) - not now though. And he lived a couple of streets from the young Thompson, in Preston.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Paul Sutton;n821624

which made the sites far less risky than they appear to us.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with this part and you have to take into account the other options also. The best he could do was to get a woman into a dark corner, that was his only option unless he could talk his way, or pay his way, into someone's home which was unlikely given women were well aware of the dangers of that occupation and most of them didn't have a home.

On your other points, I reckon you're underestimating how difficult it is to catch a murderer with no connection to his victims.

Look back at serial killers before the advent of DNA and having information stored in one place and readily accessible, and you'll find that they were caught because stench was coming out of a flat or a victim escaped from the murderers house, or something like that to make it obvious who the serial killer was.

Look at Peter Sutcliffe, not only was he a psychopath who should have been hung, he was a massive idiot who went round smashing women over the head when pretty much anyone at any time could have turned the corner given the hour of the day. He simply got lucky and the women who were his victims, very unlucky. Sutcliffe made the mistake that placed the noose 'round his neck when he stole licence plates from a scrapyard. Without that he wouldn't have been caught that night and would have been at liberty to carry on killing women.

As a police force, you need something to fall your way when you don't have DNA and fit for purpose information storing records, and nothing fell their way until he stole those number plates; even though Sutcliffe was 'running around killing people long before midnight. Nobody turned the corner at the right time.

They had very good photofits of Sutcliffe, but that's not much use when you have no idea where he lives in a county of 3 million people or so.

So, Jack was simply lucky. His sites were more or less the best he could do and unfortunately, nobody turned the corner at the right time. They were pretty dark spots or they were at a time of the morning when few people were around. Knowing you had to be pretty much caught red-handed in those days meant a dark spot then was not as risky as a dark spot now, with DNA and CCTV all over the show.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the welcome!

As said, I'm very taken with Tim Westcott's book, and he tantalisingly alludes to some network of just a few landlords who owned most of the grotty lodgings and doss houses. I must dig the book out - he even mentions some boxer with a history of abusing 'unfortunates'. I agree he'd have kebabed anyone - which is another reason not to imagine he'd tag along with Robert Paul. But I don't buy his 'luck' (but cannot deny the efficacy of whatever he did to evade capture). I'm sure there's a hidden element to how he worked, and where.

Paul
his name is Tom Wescott.

i never read his book but heard its pretty good. Im not sure if his suspect Charles Legrand is in it, but he championed this suspect, who is a completely valid one IMHO. He was a PI involved in the packer debacle,a shady character, inserted himself into the investigation and was put forth at the time as a suspect
by a law enforcement officer (i beleive it was a prison official).

[Ms Diddles]

Being brand new here, so I apologise if this is very old hat. Also for over-posting. Having thought about joining for years, I've a lot of stuff stored in my bonce!

For all the C5, there seems to have been a high chance of Jack's capture whilst actually ripping. Kelly's a possible exception, but the site was a trap.

No one did see him at work (SBO - statement of the bleeding obvious). They most nearly did in Mitre Square, hence the move indoors? But the Chapman location was also a trap - no obvious escape route. One can argue - he just didn't care, but if so, it kept working.

I've always been bugged by this; the feeling there's something missed, which made the sites far less risky than they appear to us. These are my ideas, in order of decreasing likelihood:

1. An accomplice. Perhaps the riskiest of all sites was Duffield's Yard - and the confusing witness statements (aren't they all?) do circle around two people being involved. Miller's Court and Hanbury Street also seem insane locations without one.

2. A very detailed knowledge of police beat times - leaked knowledge of time windows plus safer locations/weaker PCs? Someone with relatives 'on the force' and who likely fraternised/drank with them.

3. Direct police involvement.

Hi again, Paul!

My feeling on this is that we're looking at a mixture of compulsion (leading to the taking of greater risk than is perhaps prudent), general local knowledge (re police beats or other potential disturbances), security in the knowledge that his victims will select a secluded spot for their transaction and the luck of the devil!

[Paul Sutton]

I agree with this part and you have to take into account the other options also. The best he could do was to get a woman into a dark corner, that was his only option unless he could talk his way, or pay his way, into someone's home which was unlikely given women were well aware of the dangers of that occupation and most of them didn't have a home.

On your other points, I reckon you're underestimating how difficult it is to catch a murderer with no connection to his victims.

Look back at serial killers before the advent of DNA and having information stored in one place and readily accessible, and you'll find that they were caught because stench was coming out of a flat or a victim escaped from the murderers house, or something like that to make it obvious who the serial killer was.

Look at Peter Sutcliffe, not only was he a psychopath who should have been hung, he was a massive idiot who went round smashing women over the head when pretty much anyone at any time could have turned the corner given the hour of the day. He simply got lucky and the women who were his victims, very unlucky. Sutcliffe made the mistake that placed the noose 'round his neck when he stole licence plates from a scrapyard. Without that he wouldn't have been caught that night and would have been at liberty to carry on killing women.

As a police force, you need something to fall your way when you don't have DNA and fit for purpose information storing records, and nothing fell their way until he stole those number plates; even though Sutcliffe was 'running around killing people long before midnight. Nobody turned the corner at the right time.

They had very good photofits of Sutcliffe, but that's not much use when you have no idea where he lives in a county of 3 million people or so.

So, Jack was simply lucky. His sites were more or less the best he could do and unfortunately, nobody turned the corner at the right time. They were pretty dark spots or they were at a time of the morning when few people were around. Knowing you had to be pretty much caught red-handed in those days meant a dark spot then was not as risky as a dark spot now, with DNA and CCTV all over the show.

Thanks for detailed reply.

On Sutcliffe (excellent ITV drama which I've seen the whole thing on ITVX) I guess you know the very good book 'Evil beyond belief'? The problem was how they got blindsided by that tape! Many more junior officers had identified Sutcliiffe, and were saying 'have we got two bearded blokes doing a set of similar crimes - one hitting people, not always fatally, the other the Ripper?'. They ignored so much, due to the Wearside Jack fiasco - which was flagged as bogus by many, especially the DCI from the area.

I still think there's a missing element, involving landlords and properties, for JtR.

[Paul Sutton]

Hi again, Paul!

My feeling on this is that we're looking at a mixture of compulsion (leading to the taking of greater risk than is perhaps prudent), general local knowledge (re police beats or other potential disturbances), security in the knowledge that his victims will select a secluded spot for their transaction and the luck of the devil!

Yes, it's easy to 'over-conceptualize' (I do it with all true crime) and ignore the element of luck/circumstances! But there's some link that's being missed, about locations, how chosen.

All the best

[Paul Sutton]

Paul
his name is Tom Wescott.

i never read his book but heard its pretty good. Im not sure if his suspect Charles Legrand is in it, but he championed this suspect, who is a completely valid one IMHO. He was a PI involved in the packer debacle,a shady character, inserted himself into the investigation and was put forth at the time as a suspect
by a law enforcement officer (i beleive it was a prison official).

I can't remember if Legrand is - he's the weirdo in the Stride case, who got paid by the vigilance committee?

The books are very good - though the compilation one less so. The Bank Holiday one stops just short of fully explaining what he's getting at, I felt, about the tight network of doss-house owners and their power.