Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How well did Jack know the East End?

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

  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    Hi MrBarnett,

    First he must have visited this street a lot living near the area during the early hours. He most likely than not have visited that house before.
    I think 29 Hanbury was a known location to do sex. He sees her in that street, they could have gone there or Annie could have been waiting near that building.
    He knew this location and had more knowledge/sense/acumen of what he could get away with. Do people converse in their rooms or are awake at that hour.,outside the building how many people usually are up and about especially the market opens at 5 A.M., would they wake up if this amount of noise is made.etc..Maybe he did the sex act before.I guess he had to have honed this sense/skill one way or another.
    So in the end his sense of risk/his ability was different. I would also not be surprised if he would have been partly suicidal (like if he had a disease - he would die anyway) or partly mentally ill to take those risks.
    However he looked at it he was right,with little luck or not.
    Coupled with my earlier post much more likely a local.
    On another topic,carrying an apron to GS, writing the graffito,no problem.

    The other question is why the rush when Whitechapel was agitated because of his murders.
    So Jack has knowledge of the residents' sleeping and toilet habits? I couldn't tell you how long I will spend talking to MrsB tomorrow night or how many times I may need to have a leak. Is it really conceivable that by lurking outside my window night after night someone else could?

    If we are suggesting that he knew Hanbury Street so well that he knew exactly when early morning workers would be passing, then why did his intel let him down in Bucks Row and Dutfields Yard ?

    All he required was a dark corner at a time when most people were asleep, speed in the execution of the crimes and luck.

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
    So, know the East End privies and you know the prostitutes...if that holds form, we are looking at a local in the same squalor as the victims.

    Mike
    It has always been the best bet that it was an unknown local, in my opinion. But it can't be ruled out that someone else simply "did their homework".

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post

    I would suggest that the prostitute would in all probability retire to a privy to deal with contraceptive issues, if genuine coupling took place.
    So, know the East End privies and you know the prostitutes...if that holds form, we are looking at a local in the same squalor as the victims.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
    Damaso,

    I would say that this is undoubtedly the case. Accounts suggest a pair of nearly saloon-style swinging doors that allowed uncontrolled access all hours of the night. Even the stairwell and landing seem to have been fair game to those in the need for a quick coupling. And to add to that, the privy in the back was well-used and well-known. A few years back I posted an idea of privies being connected to the murders, but perhaps well-used privies are more connected to impoverished prostitutes and their needs, and having one nearby may have been an essential part of the job for those who lived hand to mouth.

    Mike
    G'day Mike and Damaso

    I would suggest that the prostitute would in all probability retire to a privy to deal with contraceptive issues, if genuine coupling took place.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
    Hanbury Street is only a death trap on paper. For all we know, in 1888 it had a reputation as an easy place to have sex or doss, because the residents had a reputation for staying in bed late, being inattentive, or perhaps being tolerant or even welcoming of johns, dossers, unfortunates, and other such folks.
    Damaso,

    I would say that this is undoubtedly the case. Accounts suggest a pair of nearly saloon-style swinging doors that allowed uncontrolled access all hours of the night. Even the stairwell and landing seem to have been fair game to those in the need for a quick coupling. And to add to that, the privy in the back was well-used and well-known. A few years back I posted an idea of privies being connected to the murders, but perhaps well-used privies are more connected to impoverished prostitutes and their needs, and having one nearby may have been an essential part of the job for those who lived hand to mouth.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Damaso Marte
    replied
    Hanbury Street is only a death trap on paper. For all we know, in 1888 it had a reputation as an easy place to have sex or doss, because the residents had a reputation for staying in bed late, being inattentive, or perhaps being tolerant or even welcoming of johns, dossers, unfortunates, and other such folks.

    I agree that Jack the Ripper likely didn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of police beats - his victims on the other hand had a financial incentive and the Ripper wisely outsourced site security to the professionals.

    I find that when I move to a new place, it generally takes me a year or so to learn all of the nearby streets and at least a few shortcuts. If the Ripper was a Whitechapel native or moved there before 1887, I think it's entirely reasonable that he had a decent map of the neighborhoods in his mind. Combine this with his targeting of victims who avoided the police for a living, and you have the general lack of witnesses and catching the killer red-handed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    Hi MrBarnett,

    First he must have visited this street a lot living near the area during the early hours. He most likely than not have visited that house before.
    I think 29 Hanbury was a known location to do sex. He sees her in that street, they could have gone there or Annie could have been waiting near that building.
    He knew this location and had more knowledge/sense/acumen of what he could get away with. Do people converse in their rooms or are awake at that hour.,outside the building how many people usually are up and about especially the market opens at 5 A.M., would they wake up if this amount of noise is made.etc..Maybe he did the sex act before.I guess he had to have honed this sense/skill one way or another.
    So in the end his sense of risk/his ability was different. I would also not be surprised if he would have been partly suicidal (like if he had a disease - he would die anyway) or partly mentally ill to take those risks.
    However he looked at it he was right,with little luck or not.
    Coupled with my earlier post much more likely a local.
    On another topic,carrying an apron to GS, writing the graffito,no problem.

    The other question is why the rush when Whitechapel was agitated because of his murders.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    Between a guy who may have had used prostitutes in 29 Hanbury,maybe a couple of times,and walked about the area and a local who lived in Spitalfields, what would have been the difference in regards to Chapman's murder? I say none.
    But after Chapman's murder ,with the vigilantes, undercover cops,concerned citizens he still insisted on killing on that area. There were lots of places with prostitutes. If single and unemployed/employed he could have moved. If married and unemployed he could have moved.But if married and working and/or other family ties were in that area I guess he stayed.
    Hi Varqm,

    Hanbury Street is the clincher for me. The yard itself is a potential trap. And you have to exit the kill zone blind into a major route leading directly to an early morning market.

    How can this be the informed choice of an all-knowing local expert?

    If this was indeed Jack's choice, did he coax Annie there from some distance away, or did he lurk around his chosen 'perfect' location waiting for a suitable victim to pass by?

    MrB
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-25-2014, 04:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    Between a guy who may have had used prostitutes in 29 Hanbury,maybe a couple of times,and walked about the area and a local who lived in Spitalfields, what would have been the difference in regards to Chapman's murder? I say none.
    But after Chapman's murder ,with the vigilantes, undercover cops,concerned citizens he still insisted on killing on that area. There were lots of places with prostitutes. If single and unemployed/employed he could have moved. If married and unemployed he could have moved.But if married and working and/or other family ties were in that area I guess he stayed.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Lets Kos off the hook.
    I chose the wrong quote, sorry. I should have picked a post referring to Kos's hobby.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hakeswill
    replied
    At least he was getting plenty of zinc in his diet, by all accounts

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    Well. That's original. I'll give you that.

    So, what are you saying? That someone living/eating in a workhouse was likely not the Ripper? DAMN! I was sure Robert Mann was the guy!
    Lets Kos off the hook.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hakeswill
    replied
    Just a thought, I don't think you could draw much from it. There's a passage in People of the Abyss with two guys picking up grape-stalks from the street to chew. I suppose for the poor diet may have been very poor, so extremely hypothetically there may have been problems seeing in low light conditions. I wonder if it would be possible to get a genuine value on intensity of lamps, assuming they were clean and so on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Hakeswill View Post
    I wonder if diet could play a small role here. lack of vitamin A can result in the condition night blindness, basically having difficulty seeing in poor light. I'm not suggesting a killer would necessarily have had to have access to good food, but a poor diet could have affected the ability to see well in dark. I don't think the kind of nutrition-poor fare served in workhouses would have done much for your night vision for example.
    Well. That's original. I'll give you that.

    So, what are you saying? That someone living/eating in a workhouse was likely not the Ripper? DAMN! I was sure Robert Mann was the guy!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hakeswill
    replied
    I wonder if diet could play a small role here. lack of vitamin A can result in the condition night blindness, basically having difficulty seeing in poor light. I'm not suggesting a killer would necessarily have had to have access to good food, but a poor diet could have affected the ability to see well in dark. I don't think the kind of nutrition-poor fare served in workhouses would have done much for your night vision for example.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X