The FBI Profile of Jack the Ripper & it's usefulness

[John G]

On the topic of secure or non-secure locations, I have said on another thread that I think that locations like the backyard of Hanbury Street would be what the killer sought for. Of course, the yard was a cul-de-sac and potentially dangerous, but it offered something that the killer needed: seclusion.

Take a look at the other murder sites:

George Yard - a stairwell landing, right outside doors behind which people lived. Big risks involved, and just the one escape route.

Dutfields Yard - another cul-de-sac with just the one useful exit. Big risks involved.

Mitre Square - a small, secluded square.

Millersī Court - inside a room - terribly risky, and with two doorways to pass before you were out in the clear.

It is only Buckīs Row that offers the classical open street scenario with open flight possibilities in both directions. And it would seem the killer was interrupted there, since he never got around to taking any organs.
My feeling is that he learnt from that, and decided not to do the business in places that were potentially trafficked. Instead he chose to kill in spots where there was seclusion and where he stood a good chance to get the five minutes he was denied in Buckīs Row, and thus he had a fair chance to eviscerate and procure organs.

Mitre Square could perhaps look like a perfect spot - secluded, little traffick at that time of night and three entrances. But it was patrolled by the police! That did not apply to the inside of Dutfields Yard, the back yard of Hanbury Street and room 13, Millerīs Court. Therefore, those spots seemingly provided what I think the killer sought for.

I think the notion that it was strange that he killed in these spots is a misconception. I think he perhaps skipped killing at other occasions because the spots offered were too unsecluded. And I think the outcome in Buckīs Row governed what sort of places he chose from that point on. They needed to offer him a sunstantial amount of time with the victim, with a minimized risk that he would be disturbed.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi,

Do you thinks that Dutfield Yard was a more ideal location than is sometimes credited? I mean, unlike the other locations, It seems to have been cloaked in pitch black darkness- so much so that when Joseph Lave left the club for some fresh air, upon his return he had to feel his way along the wall of the club to find his way back in.

And, of course, when Diemschutz first entered the yard, and looked down upon Stride's body from close range, he thought initially that the obstruction was a heap of dirt. It was only when he lit a match that he realized he was actually looking at a body.

And didn't also opine that he believed the killer was still in the yard, hiding within the darkness?

And what about the Berner Street club itself? I know this is often referred to as a busy club, but wasn't there fewer than a dozen people in attendance at the time of the murder?

Regards,

John

[Cogidubnus]

Prior to the strike, the matchgirls were docked pay for defective matches which ignited during manufacture or packing...so clearly they were closely supervised...I shouldn't think many got stolen...

The matches weren't like safety matches today, or even Swan Vestas - they were more like traditional lucifers - and pretty unstable owing to the white phosphorus employed in their manufacture...they had a habit of exploding...so smuggling them out in your clothing wasn't to be recommended, although I suspect it could have happened.

Incidentally I cannot recommend highly enough Louise Raw's "Striking a Light" for the fascinating story behind the Matchgirls' strike, it's actual lack of reliance upon the much feted Annie Besant, and it's true importance in the history of Trade Unionism...

All the best

Dave

[Defective Detective]

Are you sure about that? This is an area where there were several match factories. In fact, in July 1888, there was a big strike of the matchgirls.

Now, who doesn't steal office supply?

True. I'm still under the impression that matches were a relative scarcity in the nineteenth century, but I can't deny they'd have been more plentiful within the immediate vicinity of the factories.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I, actually, find little of use in it.

In 1988, any child could get his hands on matches or a cigarette lighter. Things were different a century before. Lanterns were the province of the middle-classes; we often read of the Ripper's victims and their associates treasuring matches as though they were rare and valuable - which they were in the Whitechapel slum.

Are you sure about that? This is an area where there were several match factories. In fact, in July 1888, there was a big strike of the matchgirls.

Now, who doesn't steal office supply?

[Fisherman]

On the topic of secure or non-secure locations, I have said on another thread that I think that locations like the backyard of Hanbury Street would be what the killer sought for. Of course, the yard was a cul-de-sac and potentially dangerous, but it offered something that the killer needed: seclusion.

Take a look at the other murder sites:

George Yard - a stairwell landing, right outside doors behind which people lived. Big risks involved, and just the one escape route.

Dutfields Yard - another cul-de-sac with just the one useful exit. Big risks involved.

Mitre Square - a small, secluded square.

Millersī Court - inside a room - terribly risky, and with two doorways to pass before you were out in the clear.

It is only Buckīs Row that offers the classical open street scenario with open flight possibilities in both directions. And it would seem the killer was interrupted there, since he never got around to taking any organs.
My feeling is that he learnt from that, and decided not to do the business in places that were potentially trafficked. Instead he chose to kill in spots where there was seclusion and where he stood a good chance to get the five minutes he was denied in Buckīs Row, and thus he had a fair chance to eviscerate and procure organs.

Mitre Square could perhaps look like a perfect spot - secluded, little traffick at that time of night and three entrances. But it was patrolled by the police! That did not apply to the inside of Dutfields Yard, the back yard of Hanbury Street and room 13, Millerīs Court. Therefore, those spots seemingly provided what I think the killer sought for.

I think the notion that it was strange that he killed in these spots is a misconception. I think he perhaps skipped killing at other occasions because the spots offered were too unsecluded. And I think the outcome in Buckīs Row governed what sort of places he chose from that point on. They needed to offer him a sunstantial amount of time with the victim, with a minimized risk that he would be disturbed.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't be at all sure you could see daylight out of those windows.

I wouldnīt be at all sure that there WAS any daylight to be seen when Chapman was killed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Magpie]

The FBI's profile is not any more helpful--or indeed any real improvement--than Bond's primitive attempt.

[Defective Detective]

If a boy was caught by a policeman,or any adult really, lighting a small fire or swinging a cat around by its tail in London slums in those days, he would be more likely, IMO, to get a good swift kick up the behind or a cuff around the ears than be taken into custody.

This is true. At the same time, it's difficult to imagine an East End child even having access to fire-starting materials in that period, at least frequently enough to register on the serial killer triad. Recall that Mary Jane Kelly had a single candle in her possession, and it was mentioned she was going to sent Maria Harvey out to buy another, as if it were some important thing. Even single match heads were, from my understanding, a comparative rarity.

Not to say Jack couldn't have started fires, but that material circumstances could very possibly have conspired to make it impossible for it to become habitual or ritualistic with him. The FBI dossier assumes the conditions of the 20th century in this regard, as in others.

[Rosella]

Just like to add though, maybe Jack did find fires very exciting. Wasn't there a red glow in the night sky from a huge fire in the London Docks on the night Polly Nichols was killed?

[Rosella]

If a boy was caught by a policeman,or any adult really, lighting a small fire or swinging a cat around by its tail in London slums in those days, he would be more likely, IMO, to get a good swift kick up the behind or a cuff around the ears than be taken into custody.

[Defective Detective]

I, actually, find little of use in it.

For instance: the profile suggests, as these things always do, that the Ripper would have been a firestarter in childhood, part of the classic trifecta. But it also suggests that Jack came from among the social strata of Whitechapel - which I agree with.

These two propositions may be mutually exclusive. Bear in mind the differences between the late nineteenth century and the middle twentieth, when profiling began. In 1988, any child could get his hands on matches or a cigarette lighter. Things were different a century before. Lanterns were the province of the middle-classes; we often read of the Ripper's victims and their associates treasuring matches as though they were rare and valuable - which they were in the Whitechapel slum. Can a prospective serial killer in youth start fires in an obsessive fashion without regular access to fire-starting materials?

If not, that trait would be comparatively less useful in locating the Ripper. Even if the fire-starting impulse was there, the opportunity may not have been. I don't deny he may have been a firebug as a boy, but that looking for youthful firebugs in the decades before 1888 would not be as useful as it would be today in hunting for contemporary serial killers. Likewise torturing small animals: they would have been less available to a London street urchin of the 1850s or 1860s than to a small boy of the 1950s or 1960s.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

If we take into consideration that the C5 are JtR victims.

I think Nichols and Stride are the only one that were attacked by a non customer.

Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were probably in a very vulnerable position and somehow "isolated", indicating a possible transaction.

No?

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

Thanks for explaining, but see I've never been convinced that Jack was the customer.

You may be right, after all it is only an assumption.

[GUT]

Hi GUT.

Ah, I'm sorry, the oddity that I mean is not that they lived from hand to mouth, spending it as fast as they got it.
The oddity, to my mind is that in order to accost the woman the killer must have shown good faith by handing her the fee (whatever it was).

Although proof is tough to come by it appears tradition dictates that the client must pay-up first before services are rendered. A prostitute who provides the service before she is payed is likely to be a very poor prostitute.

Where is the money he offered her?
Did he really rifle her clothing to get it back?
If so, he can't have been so pushed for time as we are led to believe.

G'day Jon

Thanks for explaining, but see I've never been convinced that Jack was the customer.

[Wickerman]

Hi GUT.

Ah, I'm sorry, the oddity that I mean is not that they lived from hand to mouth, spending it as fast as they got it.
The oddity, to my mind is that in order to accost the woman the killer must have shown good faith by handing her the fee (whatever it was).

Although proof is tough to come by it appears tradition dictates that the client must pay-up first before services are rendered. A prostitute who provides the service before she is payed is likely to be a very poor prostitute.

Where is the money he offered her?
Did he really rifle her clothing to get it back?
If so, he can't have been so pushed for time as we are led to believe.