Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Local killer for local people................

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

  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Yes, but even local people moved around...

    Originally posted by The Station Cat View Post
    All the victims were killed in a relatively small area. It is suspected that the killer was from the area or knew the area well. I'm curious to know out of all the suspects put forward how many of them where actually known to live in this area.
    I think a local killer makes sense, but we know, from looking at census records, that people moved around frequently, depending upon their circumstances changing (employment to joblessness, health to illness, married state to widowhood, etc.) Certainly people with the means would try to move out of the worst streets as soon as they could. So Jack might have started out local, then moved away, then returned to do his "work."

    I also think that the area was over-populated with people who came from all over (other parts of England, Europe, even more distant countries), and that being crowded all together into doss houses, lodging houses, shabby rentals, and other multi-family shelters would lead to a sort of "crowd-blindness" in which people didn't pay as much attention to others as they would in a small town or village. This helps answer my questions was to whether everyone really didn't see or hear anything on the murder nights.

    By the way, after watching the last two episodes of the documentary series "Victorian Slumhouse", I have nothing but respect for any Londoner with roots in the East End. I have a much better idea of the harsh living conditions and history of the slums now.
    Last edited by Pcdunn; 06-18-2017, 05:54 PM. Reason: Word left out added for clarity

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Ah, "he loved his work", likely because he told us so in a letter, right?
    He also had time "to write on a wall", and "he hated prostitutes", great, it sounds like you know all there is to know about this case.

    At last, someone who knows what they are talking about.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Rainbow
    replied
    Suicide is only in Cinema and Movies, when the writer just don't know how to end his drama, this man loved his work, he enjoyed it and enjoyed fooling the police and not being caught , he even challenged them two times in one night... and had time to write on the wall , not a man of complex of guilt...

    He hated prostitutes in his place, not a man who was married to one of them ( that is if Elen was even a prositute )


    Rainbow°

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
    The series of those crimes had stopped because:

    - He was a local, and it became so hot and dangerous to carry on more, he must have noticed some suspecions started to focus around him, and you can notice that he even killed indoor at some point at the end.

    - There was no other similar crimes outside Whitechapel, if he was from outside, he could have easily chosen other places to practice his MO.


    Rainbow°
    Suicide?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rainbow
    replied
    The series of those crimes had stopped because:

    - He was a local, and it became so hot and dangerous to carry on more, he must have noticed some suspecions started to focus around him, and you can notice that he even killed indoor at some point at the end.

    - There was no other similar crimes outside Whitechapel, if he was from outside, he could have easily chosen other places to practice his MO.

    A side note: you can forget about Bury, he was an innocent man, Mckenzie had been killed after he was hanged, and he confissed to his guilt, that man has nothing to do with such crimes, whos author had managed to keep himself away from the police eyes for more than 128 years.


    Rainbow°
    Last edited by Rainbow; 06-18-2017, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Similar logic applies to a local killer. Increased police presence on his own doorstep might compel him to go further afield.
    But he evidently didn't. Interestingly, though, there did seem to be longer gaps between successful murders, which might suggest that he was exercising some caution due to "local pressure" being brought to bear. Granted, our sample size is probably too small to draw any firm conclusions, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by jason_c View Post
    Still comfortable killing in the area as it became flooded with policemen after the second or third murder? I have my doubts. I think a perp with the ability to travel any meaningful distance at all would probably have done so. I cannot say with absolute certaintly but to me everything suggests a local. A local who couldn't travel far due to financial restraints or commitments. I think his victims also suggest this. His victims were the lowest of the low and no money was found on their person. These were the best prostitutes he could attract or afford imo.
    Similar logic applies to a local killer. Increased police presence on his own doorstep might compel him to go further afield.

    Leave a comment:


  • andy1867
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    That was a dubious, and almost certainly bogus, story peddled by Major Henry Smith in his self-aggrandising memoirs From Constable to Commissioner.
    Fair enough Sam...I didn't know the original source, its on a Youtube video,
    Always happy to be educated

    Leave a comment:


  • The Station Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Seeing no-one suspicious can often include no-one that isn't normally around here every day. Suspicion being more often attached to strangers than locals.
    Personally I favor the local culprit, he is more able to fly under the radar than someone who is not recognised by anyone.

    There's something to be said for those who can 'Hyde' in plain sight.

    I agree and taking this topic one stage further if I may..............

    I have started another thread under the suspect David COHEN, which I believe incorporates this topic and how perhaps he could be dismissed as a possible suspect, I would very much like to hear peoples views on it..................

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I suppose that the only disadvantage to being a 'local guy' is that he would have suffered a greater risk of being recognised by someone. On the whole though I'd say local man or a regular visitor (for work eg)

    Regards

    Herlock
    Seeing no-one suspicious can often include no-one that isn't normally around here every day. Suspicion being more often attached to strangers than locals.
    Personally I favor the local culprit, he is more able to fly under the radar than someone who is not recognised by anyone.

    There's something to be said for those who can 'Hyde' in plain sight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I suppose that the only disadvantage to being a 'local guy' is that he would have suffered a greater risk of being recognised by someone. On the whole though I'd say local man or a regular visitor (for work eg)

    Regards

    Herlock

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Originally posted by miss marple
    The idea that such a type would roam the East End flaunting gold jewellery is crazy.
    Anyway, you were correct in saying that it was off-topic, I'll give you that.
    I've taken this across to the "Hutchinson's Statement" thread, where this particular topic more comfortably belongs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by miss marple View Post
    The idea that such a type would roam the East End flaunting gold jewellery is crazy. ......Anyone with gold jewellary would be mugged.

    Miss Marple
    Yes, it's off-topic but misguided. Muggings did happen, attacks on strangers walking through the streets at night did happen. Possessions taken from these victims did happen.
    These victims had to be there for these crimes to take place, right?
    According to you they would not there because no-one would be so stupid to risk their safety, so how come these victims exist?

    John Kolinsky, a German, walking through Commercial Rd. at 4:30 am on Feb. 12th, 1888 was seized by the throat and struck a violent blow to the eye, accomplices cut his pockets and removed £4 14s from him.

    A man attacked in Wellclose Sq., his watch stolen. Nathan Henry was attacked in Turner St. after midnight and was relieved of his possessions, 4s.

    How can you seriously claim the story is absurd because the man would get mugged, when men were getting mugged all the time?
    Crimes like this happen because the victim, like all of us proceed under the false impression that, "it'll never happen to me".

    Anyway, you were correct in saying that it was off-topic, I'll give you that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by andy1867 View Post
    Had he not supposedly washed his hands before..err..hand lol..in a street sink or something, I seem to remember seeing or reading something about blood being found in a trough near the scene
    That was a dubious, and almost certainly bogus, story peddled by Major Henry Smith in his self-aggrandising memoirs From Constable to Commissioner.

    Leave a comment:


  • andy1867
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    "He'd have to have been in the open, even if he were down a back-street, when - at the height of the scare - the streets were manned by extra policemen and even vigilantes. And he'd have had to confront this reality almost certainly with bloody hands, an incriminating weapon and bits of his victims' anatomy about his person. The sooner he got to ground, whether bolt-hole or home, the better."

    Hello Sam,

    Good points. This begs the question why stop to write some obscure message (to us anyway) on a wall? I never thought about it before but with all that funk on his hands there is no mention of some of it being transferred to the wall which I believe was white. And he also managed to keep the writing neat with all that adrenaline pumping through him and in constant fear of being seen.

    c.d.
    Had he not supposedly washed his hands before..err..hand lol..in a street sink or something, I seem to remember seeing or reading something about blood being found in a trough near the scene

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X