Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How well did Jack know the East End?

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

  • Rosella
    replied
    We know nothing about the Ripper's family background. The family may have moved two or three times around Whitechapel and Spitalfields. People were pretty mobile in those days and did midnight flits if they couldn't afford the rent. He might not have been a good little Jack when he was an older kid and could have explored the district with his mates at times instead of going to school.

    I agree darkness helped him, he had great luck, also that he probably gave his victims the choice of location to die.

    Leave a comment:


  • SirJohnFalstaff
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Sir John ,

    The guy is getting cleverer by the minute.

    MrB
    Au contraire,

    since he nearly got caught.

    I'm saying the experience we enjoy walking through a city at night is nothing compared to an era when there was no electricity in most homes and very few lamp posts.
    If you hear a guy at 120 feet before you see him, that's pretty dark.

    Police officer and their lantern can be spotted before they spot you.

    You gotta to add that kind of cover in Jack's luck.
    this is what I'm saying.
    Jack might have some level of streetsmart, but he was no genius.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
    ...it's not impossible that the ripper did have an intimate knowledge of hanbury street. He could have watched the site for a week and studied the patterns of the residents. He could also have worked right there or had a relative who lived at the site. I think it's likely the ripper lives near one of the murders (Dorset street?) and works at another. I think the ripper killed within his immediate comfort zone. He knew the sites so well he did know exactly who would be passing thru when. The skill and speed in which he worked suggests he was very comfortable. Mr b if you had to pick one site for the ripper to live at and one for him to work at what would your choices be?
    Hi Rocky,

    You've put me on the spot. The answer is I have no idea. But if I were to guess I would firstly say that Doveton Street and Broad Street goods yard make perfect sense to me, if we exclude Stride. If you are talking C5, then somewhere to the East of Goulston Street and south of Spitalfields. Stick a pin in the map and Whitechapel Road/High Street would do for both home and work.

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySullivan
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Brought over from Shawlgatezzzzzzzzz


    Rocky,

    So to add to his encyclopaedic knowledge of police beats and work routes we must add an intimate knowledge of the bladder and bowel movements of 29 Hanbury Street?

    I take it back, he deserves his top hat and silk lined cloak .

    MrB
    ...it's not impossible that the ripper did have an intimate knowledge of hanbury street. He could have watched the site for a week and studied the patterns of the residents. He could also have worked right there or had a relative who lived at the site. I think it's likely the ripper lives near one of the murders (Dorset street?) and works at another. I think the ripper killed within his immediate comfort zone. He knew the sites so well he did know exactly who would be passing thru when. The skill and speed in which he worked suggests he was very comfortable. Mr b if you had to pick one site for the ripper to live at and one for him to work at what would your choices be?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Brought over from Shawlgatezzzzzzzzz


    Rocky,

    So to add to his encyclopaedic knowledge of police beats and work routes we must add an intimate knowledge of the bladder and bowel movements of 29 Hanbury Street?

    I take it back, he deserves his top hat and silk lined cloak .

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Sir John ,

    The guy is getting cleverer by the minute. He now has to take into account the visibility in the streets/times of day.

    Sorry , mate, don't get it. In Bucks Row, if you are discovered, you run in one direction or the other and branch off when required. Same as any other mid-street attack. Not an option in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street, or Miller's Court for that matter.

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • SirJohnFalstaff
    replied
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    Having been lost in some of the finest cities in the world, I can say with a certain authority that finding a way out is much easier than say, attempting to locate a specific address. Cities herd people towards large arteries. There is more light, more sound, more movement. Even in the dead of night. Towards warehouse districts is always wrong, towards businesses like bars and restaurants is always right. Towards a river is also almost always right.

    Give me an address to locate in London, and I promise you I wont find it. Drop me in the middle of London blindfolded, and I can find my way to a major road, and therefor a cab. As long as Jack's sense of direction wasn't totally absent, he didn't need to know the area to escape from it. On the other hand, he did need to know it to find women to solicit who were on their own.
    hmm. Reading the inquest of Nichols, both men who found her body heard each others when they were at 120 feet. If you can't see at that distance, it makes the escape more challenging, unless you know the area very well.

    Leave a comment:


  • SirJohnFalstaff
    replied
    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
    If our killer knew the area very well why didn't he seek out someone like Mary Kelly in the first place?By finding a victim with their own room he could spend as much time indulging himself as he wanted I think he came across his victims by chance and they took him to places that offerd a small degree of privacy.
    maybe he got his thrill by killing outside and leaving the body for everyone to see.
    In october, There were three times the police officers patrolling the streets that there were in July. Plus there was the vigilante committee, and disguised officers.
    He did wait 5 weeks before killing again. Told himself "screw that, I love killing too much, next one is inside."

    Leave a comment:


  • SirJohnFalstaff
    replied
    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    Yes but to have the confidence to do it, knowing that he knew the different routes in and out and where they led would have been important.
    That is why criminals tend to operate in areas they are familiar with - in that sense a serial killer would be similar to a normal criminal.
    The most common assumption and one that I am virtually certain was the case - is that the victim took the culprit to the eventual crime scene. It was her choice. I think the killer would have to be confident himself that such a place was safe for his purposes before he went ahead. It is not always necessarily the case that a suitable location for a sexual assignation will be a suitable place to kill, rip up and escape unseen.
    This is interesting. If I could go back in time, I'd try to convince the police to ask prostitutes if they ever met a client who changed his mind when brought to a location to perform the deed. As if he didn't feel the place was safe enough for him (light in windows, too much noise around/awake people)

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Spitalfields today is quite upmarket. Houses in Fournier Street/Princelet Street, when they come up for sale, fetch up to 4million ($6m+), The public urinal outside Christ Church was recently up for sale for 850K.

    I wonder how often people who live in these properties venture across Whitechapel High Street and then again across the Commercial Road into St George in the East?

    And before affordable public transport and cars people were even more territorial. Beyond their home turf (a few interconnected streets) their places of work and attractions such as markets and pubs, the wider East End would have been as mysterious to most East Enders as the West End (the 'Uvver End').

    So how would Jack have acquired a detailed knowledge of the shagging spots of Spitalfields, Whitechapel St Georges and the City?

    Only if he had the leisure and inclination to do so. So a posh slummer or a latter day Rodinsky?

    MrB
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-23-2014, 05:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ianincleveland
    replied
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    Well, no 18 year old girl in her right mind wanders about the big cities of Europe more that slightly drunk without a care in the world. Especially in Prague where at that time being caught by the wrong people absolutely did result in execution. I was always HIGHLY motivated to get to a major artery for extraction. And yeah I screwed up some, but mostly I could navigate. Especially in Paris and London where at worst I had to head towards the river. Any idiot could get out with at least a small degree of area knowledge.

    But thats not the problem. There is no way in any of the cities I got lost in could I have found some surefire way of finding a woman alone. I had a hell of a time finding payphones, and this was back when payphones were everywhere. Fleeing is easy. Finding victims is the hard part if you don't know the area.

    I lived in Whitechapel from 1988-1994 and could find my way about reasonably ok within a half mile radius.Other than that there were places i knew how to get to,but many that i didnt.

    Being in the wrong place does make you look for areas with people and preferably well lit surroundings.Having got really lost in San Salvador,one of the worlds most dangerous cities,i was VERY motivated to find somewhere safe.By the time i did i was shaking, maybe more from perceived threats but there were certainly real threats around,though murdering a foreigner is rare,it draws too much police attention.Nice to know thats about your only protection.

    JTR must have felt at least a bit worried he might get caught,so his aim would be to get off the streets as quick as possible and into his bolt hole.after all if he was caught he would have hung

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    No dear. People with smart phones wander INTO things. Not around things.
    Ah, so they do! I was thinking of moths.

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    From what I've seen, that's precisely what people with smartphones actually do.
    No dear. People with smart phones wander INTO things. Not around things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Barnaby View Post
    It's amazing that they just didn't wander about aimlessly in circles given that they didn't have smartphones!
    From what I've seen, that's precisely what people with smartphones actually do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barnaby
    replied
    It's amazing that they just didn't wander about aimlessly in circles given that they didn't have smartphones!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X