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

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

the likes of Bundy & Dahmer. Yes, that's the reality, unfortunately, meek and unobtrusive. Deception is part of their makeup.

It's always the little guy...
.

[Wickerman]

Partly I think it's MOST FRIGHTENING to think of Jack the Ripper as a quiet neighbor who was watching everyone the whole time, standing and living beside them, etc. There's just something so awfully creepy about that! Bleech.

Ah, the likes of Bundy & Dahmer. Yes, thats the reality unfortunately, meek and unobtrusive. Deception is part of their makeup.

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

Except for the Whitehall Mystery, all the victims of unsolved murders between november 1887 and november 1888 lived under 500 meters from Christchurch Spitalfields at the moment of their deaths.

How many unsolved murders were there in that period?

I think I read that finding women dead in the streets wasn't so uncommon in that area....but they weren't usually carved up so gruesomely.

Maybe I'm making it more dramatic than it actually was, usually, though.
.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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.

Except for the Whitehall Mystery, all the victims of unsolved murders between november 1887 and november 1888 lived under 500 meters from Christchurch Spitalfields at the moment of their deaths. Jack was a local alright.

[Michael W Richards]

Intimate knowledge of streets, lanes and how and where they intersect with major thoroughfares would indicate that the killer of any of these women had some comfort with navigating around the area. Which would lean compellingly to someone who was located in that same area.

What I find interesting with this question is this: if more than one person killed the Canonicals, what would his reaction be to similar crimes happening right around him? Would he be indignant and write to someone to claim what was his work and what wasn't? Would he try to publicly blame the party that he felt was responsible? Would he leave the area immediately?

I find that notion of claustrophobia and a killer caged in his own backyard potentially explosive.

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

I will openly admit most of my "research" has been done on this site
Its the easiest way isn't it?..Lazy..yes....even parasitic , but I simply take in what the more knowledgeable folk offer.

I am in the same class : ( The waterfall of info is daunting!

I listened to one ["Rippercast" episode], and I honestly forget who it was, but he espoused, more or less "Anyone that had come to the conclusion it was a " Unknown local man" had virtually given up and really had no place in "Ripperology"...

Well, that IS the type the FBI came up with when profiling the killer. Maybe you've seen it already: https://vault.fbi.gov/Jack%20the%20Ripper

Well that sums me up precisely...

I'm a believer in that theory as well. (Not that I couldn't be sold on a particular individual, if pressed.) (And I don't have delusions that I "have a place in Ripperology"...just some impressions.)

Partly I think it's MOST FRIGHTENING to think of Jack the Ripper as a quiet neighbor who was watching everyone the whole time, standing and living beside them, etc. There's just something so awfully creepy about that! Bleech.

The FBI thoughts that stayed with me were 1.) he lived alone, with no one to ask him questions about his late night comings and goings, or blood splattered clothes, 2.) he lived somewhere close by, into which he could dodge off the streets relatively quickly, and 3.) the fact that he was never caught in the act was as much a matter of luck as cunning or planning.

One might say he just rented an extra place in Whitechapel, or knew of a workplace or some secret corner/cellar/whathaveyou where he could hide out, but that just ups the chances of being noticed, I'd think. As locals were questioned, they might say "Well, there is this guy who only uses his place on weekends...no one knows him that well." Or "There is a guy who seems to duck into his storefront/smithy/studio late at night sometimes...oh yes, particularly on nights murders happen."

I'd think those scenarios would draw unwanted attention to him.

------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: The report was commissioned as research for this 1988 documentary, The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqFtvJibWKY

.

[Wickerman]

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.

Great little series that, something interesting in every program.
I wasn't convinced that using todays currency values was a good idea, thats all.

[Bridewell]

no further than half an hour away, if the timing of the GSG has anything to do with it.

but I think must have been right in the heart of it. draw a circle around the murder sites of tabram to McKenzie and I bet theres better chance then not hes in it or very near it.

Depending on the diameter of the circle we could well both be right.

[Abby Normal]

no further than half an hour away, if the timing of the GSG has anything to do with it.

but I think must have been right in the heart of it. draw a circle around the murder sites of tabram to McKenzie and I bet theres better chance then not hes in it or very near it.

[Bridewell]

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

A local man wouldn't have to explain his presence in the area and being recognised would present a problem only if seen in incriminating circumstances. On balance I subscribe to the notion that the killer(s) lived locally and, if a single killer was indeed responsible I would surmise that he lived west of Bucks Row, east of Mitre Square, south of Hanbury Street and north of Commercial Street. Resident on or near to Flower & Dean St would be my guess.

[Sam Flynn]

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.)

Indeed, however it was quite common for people to move around for those reasons without leaving the confines of Whitechapel. From doss-house to doss-house, from street to street, from Ratcliff Highway to Commercial Road.

[Harry D]

But he evidently didn't.

Exactly, so I don't think it proves anything as to where the killer was based.

[John Wheat]

Six pages and I'm the first person to cite the fact that Eddowes's killer appears to have fled into Whitechapel? Most compelling argument for a local IMO...

Why would the killer wherever there from not flee into a heavily populated area?

[The Station Cat]

Six pages and I'm the first person to cite the fact that Eddowes's killer appears to have fled into Whitechapel? Most compelling argument for a local IMO...

Agreed, this seemingly overlooked fact is certainly a compelling argument if not proof of his "localness".

[Damaso Marte]

Six pages and I'm the first person to cite the fact that Eddowes's killer appears to have fled into Whitechapel? Most compelling argument for a local IMO...