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 Lechmere View Post
    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.
    Your'e not wrong there. I would suggest that some of the locations were so iffy as to preclude any suggestion of a risk assessment by the killer. Take Dutfields Yard. Short of knocking on the door of the club and asking if they had a spare bed, could they have chosen a riskier place at that time and in that general area?

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Ed,

    Perhaps the title of the thread should have been:

    'How well would Jack have had to have known the East End?'

    Not very well at all, I would suggest.

    If you take the geographical logic of the Lechmere theory (leaving the rest to one side for the moment) we have a killer who probably met his work day victims bang on one or other of his two routes to work, and added a couple of weekend forays in the vicinity of his childhood home and a possible diversion post interruption to Aldgate.

    No ducking and diving down alleyways, just plodding along familiar major streets and picking up whatever came his way. The actual murder sites strike me as being the choice of the victims.

    MrB
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-30-2014, 04:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    You would have to take every location known to have been inhabited or visited each individual suspects within the time frame. and work out routes he may have followed between them and likely barriers - eg major rods - that would probably have channelled his movements in certain directions

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Ed,

    Given that he only moved to Doveton Street in June, 1888 he may not have too well been acquainted with routes from there to Broad Street.

    He would most likely have started work around 14. Prior to that he would no doubt have known the streets in the immediate vicinity extremely well, but the wider East End? I doubt it. Once he is working, how much leisure time does he have?

    What I am trying to question here is not a familiarity with the main thoroughfares or streets where he would naturally walk on his way to school/work/grannies etc, but the cliche that Jack knew every last alley and court in the East End and this was how he was able to escape detection.

    This occurred to me when I noticed the neat geographical symmetry in the work day murders if considered from a Lechmere perspective. The first two along a southerly route close(r) to his previous homes, then Nichols and then a switch to a more northerly route. It made me wonder whether a side benefit from escorting Paul to work was the discovery of a new route that he himself could take.

    Cheers,

    MrB
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-30-2014, 03:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X