Organised or Disorganised?

[perrymason]

Hi Ben,

I had seen that thread before, its a good one, but Im not sure you got my point, being that a room alone would under the circumstances be much more preferable, and we cannot gauge what the Rippers means were by how "shabby genteel" the witnessed suspects were dressed.

You base this on the notion that there would not be much blood, I would strongly disagree, as we have evidence that to some degree he puts his hands inside women. More invasive with Annie than with Polly, but even moreso with Kate. That means he needs to wash the cuffs at least, or dispose of the clothing....unlikely in the case of a poor resident, or wash out the stains. That act alone would prove tricky in a doss house with communal wash facilities, and we have evidence that wash sent out with bloodstains on it gets noticed during this killing streak. Let alone hiding organs, or as you suggest, bringing some kidney down for breakfast to cook in the communal kitchen.

There is nothing on which to base the mans possible location on other than the distance that could be walked by a healthy man on a given night, the sounds that might be generated by a carriage, the probablities that he could evade detection on the way home, and his probable "means" based on the attire of some credible suspects.

The man could have had his own room in a house outside the less than single square mile he kills within, and would be wise to have done so, as he could stash clothes and organs easily, and he would likely be walking out of the killing zone immediately after killing....rather than committing one murder, a second, then returning to within the same square mile he killed the first victim in...while casually dropping evidence I should add.

Im sure he may have lodged as you suggest, or perhaps maintained a presence in a lodging house or two along with a "bolt hole", but I dont think you can stick with an argument that has a public doss ward as convenient or as suitable for him as a private room was.

Mrs Leur wouldnt have known when her lodger came in if he hadnt made some noise while doing so, ....as an example of the type of accomodations that would work...and that was even in the "less than" square mile. The smaller office of Druitt, a private accomodation out of the fray, is another example of something that would work.

I feel Ben, that for the argument that you put forward to work, we must assume that Jack hardly got any mess on him ever, and that he could smuggle organs around within the home, or homes, relatively easily without an audience.

I dont think either is feasible Ben myself. You put your hands inside a womans abdomen to extract an organ with residual blood on and in it, you lift intestines out and reach forward to place them above the shoulder,...you have your hand near the neck when the throat is cut, ....all would lead to some blood on the killer. The premise that the organs and the women were virtually bled dry is a mistake....they werent hung upside down when their throats had been cut, there was no gravitational force that assisted the body in emptying itself of blood fully. And in at least the case of Kate, she may not even have finished squirming after the cut if conscious...he only has minutes to do all he does...he may have hands in her while she is still bleeding to death.

Nice to see you Ben, hope all is well with you.

[perrymason]

I guess the real point being...there are people that existed somewhere between toff and desperately poor, and there is a possibility that the man did take precautions, and didnt drool, and had his faculties about him.

How many of the cases of modern serial killers that people so often quote here, deal with individuals from dirt poor homes...rather than say, lower or middle class? Bundy was from middle class, so was Dahlmer. Probably Gacy too. Ed Gein owned a farm, Pickett in BC owned a profitable pig farm business and land worth some said $3m Cdn. Unibomber even came from a decent background. No reason to think Zodiak was from poverty..or Berkowitz, or Rader.

Jack may well have been lower or middle class...I dont think a socialite or aristocracy by any stretch,....but why not have him paying for a private room? Whose to say he had no money...he lured unfortunates, who probably asked to see some coin up front. Maybe he had pound notes when they asked, and that why he kept getting them to go with him.

Where is it written that the more ideal scenario for him, which is a room or house alone, wasnt available to him?

All the best Ben, all.

[Ben]

but Im not sure you got my point, being that a room alone would under the circumstances be much more preferable

An island filled with nothing but women and a selection of knives might have been "preferable", Mike, but I suspect we're rather more interested in what the killer was likely to have had at his disposal. You're claiming that he was more than likely to have had a single room, but single rooms were likely to have been found in lodging establishments, and the chances of other lodgers singling out a specific individual for scrutiny were increased in such esblishments, courtesy of the smaller numbers.

The very argument you're using to rule out a larger lodging house can be used far more persuasively against the smaller "single room" establishments you're championing. The fewer the individuals in the building, the greater the chances of one of them being singled out for scrutiny, be it a smaller lodging house or a family home. The greater the number of individuals in the buildings, the smaller the chances of any one single occupant being singled out for scrutiny.

The only alternative is the killer having an entire home to himself, but if that were the case, not only would he be a rarity in the district we're interested in, but he'd be risking his neck on the streets unnecessaerily when he could have disptached his victims at home. As ever, it's advisable to examine other serial cases. When the crime scenes are closely clustered, the offender is usually locally resident, and "local" in this case rarely meant having a house to oneself where he lived alone. When the criminal lives alone (Nilsen, Dahmer) he generally dispatches his victims there...because he can.

You base this on the notion that there would not be much blood, I would strongly disagree, as we have evidence that to some degree he puts his hands inside women.

That was after the victim had been murdered, Mike, at which point he could have removed his coat and rolled up his sleeves if he wanted to, not that the bodily organs themselves would have oozed anything but the smallest amount of blood. Neither washing nor changing was required if the killer had the nouse and the wherewithal to take precautions, and if his overcooat was already shabby - as was undoubtedly the case with an appreciable number of impoverished Eastenders - some minor soiling wouldn't have been in the least conspicious anywhere, let alone a packed East End lodging house.

There is nothing on which to base the mans possible location on other than the distance that could be walked by a healthy man on a given night

Absolutely incorrect. That only holds true if we disregard all knowledge of previous cases which tend, invariably, to implicate a local agent for crimes that centre around a concentrated, circumscribed region. Personal hunches and hypotheses are all very well, but when history points in the opposite direction to that of our theory, it's the theory that ought to be disregarded, not history, and I'm afraid that introducing "carriages" into the equation is even less persuasive.

His probable means shouldn't be too taxing to ascertain. Historical precedent, crime scene evidence and expert opinion would indicate a local or locally based offender. The overwhelming majority of men in that locality were relatively poor and working class. Ergo, the probability of the killer being a working class local man are markedly increased.

Moreover, it's only reasonable to infer that success in evading capture may have been predicated, to an extent, on an ability to get off the streets shortly after the murders. It should hardly come as any great coincidental surprise, then, that in the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder, the killer headed East towards the heart of the murder district, not West towards comparative prosperity.

as he could stash clothes and organs easily

As he could in a populated lodging house, which we know were popular with the criminal element in the district because they enabled their occupants to blend into an already dodgy crowd and become needles in haystacks, easily.

I feel Ben, that for the argument that you put forward to work, we must assume that Jack hardly got any mess on him ever, and that he could smuggle organs around within the home, or homes, relatively easily without an audience.

My argument doesn't entail all of the above, and I've already explained why there would not have been an "audience" in the sense you're talking about, while there would have been in a smaller lodging house, where the chances of any one lodger being noticed was increased. I'm not sure how you can claim that my argument with regard to the concealment of organs isn't "feasible" unless you didn't read my previous post that addressed that specific point.

You put your hands inside a womans abdomen to extract an organ with residual blood on and in it, you lift intestines out and reach forward to place them above the shoulder,...you have your hand near the neck when the throat is cut

Having done so using a modicum of common sense, rolling my cuffs back, taking my coat off, or if not, feeling pretty damn secure that my coat was as grubby as the next grubby bloomin' lodger back at the grubby lodging house, famed for its grubbiness, which included grubby butchers and grubby slaughterers (Now how can I emphasize this point further, I wonder?)

[Ben]

How many of the cases of modern serial killers that people so often quote here, deal with individuals from dirt poor homes...rather than say, lower or middle class?

Well, you examine the locality in which the crimes were committed, and comtemplate the extent of poverty in that locality. It may make for a boring and unglamorous explanation to a series of violent unsolved murders, but the area under scrutiny was home to a majority population of working class men and women of varying degrees of poverty. Of course I'm not suggesting that the killer must have been "dirt poor"; there were shop-keepers, barbers, tinkers, tailors and all the rest of them; respectable working class people, and Jack could have belonged to this number too. Lodging houses were not exclusively, or even primarily, for vagrants.

I'm not ruling out a private room, but it's simply nonsense to claim that lodgers in room-per-person establishments were more likely to avoid scrutiny than lodgers in busy, crowded lodging houses where sheer numbers effectively nullified any possibility of one of the masses being picked on. "Oh look, he's got a dirty coat! Maybe some of that dirt is blood! Oh no wait, everyone else looks exactly the same, forget it".

Let's be under no illusions either about the killer somehow needing to appear more wealthy than the average punter in order to procure prostitutes. These women were desperate and didn't charge an extortionate amount - they couldn't. Their best option was the safest; not the toffy out-of-towner, but the tried and tested local, Mr. Joe Average Blend-into-the-Crowd.

[DarkPassenger]

The first point; I am at a loss to understand why you think the throats were cut unneccesarily.

The second point; I will always regret that I never saved one certain link I stumbled across some 7-8 yrs ago. It was a contemporary 19th century description of the surgical removal of a uterus where the opening up of the patient by a single slice from the pubis to the arch of the breastbone was seen to have been standard 19th century practice.

Third point; Yes, I have favoured the culprit to have been a mortuary attendant myself. One of the minuses on that avenue is that the Metropolitan region had no permanant mortuary attendants, they seem to have been corralled from a local workhouse .
However, the City of London did have a permanant staff at the mortuary.

First point: He strangled the victims, and the throat was cut post-mortem.

Second point: Are you saying the killer had surgical training, and killed in order to get to the uterus?

Third point: The fact that the Metropolitan region employed casual labour from workhouses points to Jack having been one of those workers. He was unlikely to have held down a full-time or perminant job, he was likely to have had limited skills, and probably learned what he did on the job. I wouldn't rule out a detailed look at who was employed and when they were employed, if we're looking for more names to throw into the pot.

[Sam Flynn]

First point: He strangled the victims

It's by no means certain that he consistently did so, DarkP.

[perrymason]

Hi Ben,

Its easier for me to stay contextual if I address some of your response inside your quote....so.....

"You're claiming that he was more than likely to have had a single room, but single rooms were likely to have been found in lodging establishments, and the chances of other lodgers singling out a specific individual for scrutiny were increased in such esblishments, courtesy of the smaller numbers."

If I conveyed that to you Ben it was in error, because I in no way intended to say it was more likely....nor did I,...what I said was it would be preferable, and that there is nothing in evidence in any of the Canonicals that would give us any information about his financial means. Other than a witnessed suspects wardrobe, and a man with means could wear whatever he liked, or served his purpose.

"The very argument you're using to rule out a larger lodging house can be used far more persuasively against the smaller "single room" establishments you're championing. The fewer the individuals in the building, the greater the chances of one of them being singled out for scrutiny, be it a smaller lodging house or a family home. The greater the number of individuals in the buildings, the smaller the chances of any one single occupant being singled out for scrutiny."

I wont say that hiding in plain sight couldnt be effective, we know that It could have, but bloodstains and organs are far less trouble to a killer if he goes to a place where no-one could see him, if he took care to be quiet. As I mentioned, the case of the landlady at 22 Batty.....if her story is accurate, she is only aware her lodger came in late because he made noise while doing so. He could freely come and go without chancing any confrontation with anyone in those circumstances.

"The only alternative is the killer having an entire home to himself, but if that were the case, not only would he be a rarity in the district we're interested in,....."

Again, the murders were committed in "the district we are interested in", that doesnt translate to his being a resident of that same district.

"..but he'd be risking his neck on the streets unnecessaerily when he could have disptached his victims at home."

So who declared that Jack the Ripper didnt kill outdoors because he wanted to?. I know the fans of Mary Jane as a Ripper victim would follow your logic, that it would be more desireable for the killer to have the freedom to work in less that tension packed circumstances......well, could you refer me to the data that shows we have determined that this killer didnt actually enjoy the outdoor venues and and that tension? Dont some people actually thrive on risk taking?

As ever, it's advisable to examine other serial cases. When the crime scenes are closely clustered, the offender is usually locally resident, and "local" in this case rarely meant having a house to oneself where he lived alone

Again Ben, there is no evidence he lived where poor people had to share rooms. He could walk there from 10 minutes or more in any direction out of Whitechapel/Spitalfield.

... When the criminal lives alone (Nilsen, Dahmer) he generally dispatches his victims there...because he can.

And in the case of Pickett of British Columbia, he drove into town in the East End of Vancouver to pick up the poorest of the street whores there, because he had to go where his prey was....with enticements of drugs, money and partying....(their Maslows Heirarcy)....then he drove them back out to his farm...almost an hour away. He killed over 50 women that way. Sound like something that may have worked here? Could Jack have come into the slums just to kill. The answer so far is still yes, its possible.

"That was after the victim had been murdered, Mike, at which point he could have removed his coat and rolled up his sleeves if he wanted to, not that the bodily organs themselves would have oozed anything but the smallest amount of blood. Neither washing nor changing was required if the killer had the nouse and the wherewithal to take precautions, and if his overcooat was already shabby - as was undoubtedly the case with an appreciable number of impoverished Eastenders - some minor soiling wouldn't have been in the least conspicious anywhere, let alone a packed East End lodging house."

Ben, I for the life of me cannot see why you think 5 murders involving slitting arteries and mutilations, and 3 of them including organs and viscera taken away with him, would result in "minor soiling". With Liz's single artery cut, and a partial on the other, there was likely 5-10 minutes of bleeding before her body and organs would ooze out their contents,.....assuming it doesnt clot with the cold air. In Kates case, the killer may have had 6-7 minutes total...incluidng the facial cuts and apron section and leaving before Harvey looks in, what are the chances her organs and body would be empty of blood when he started? Zero. He had his hands in Kate when she was still bleeding...he had to have, with the timing.

".... and I'm afraid that introducing "carriages" into the equation is even less persuasive."

Ben,....please dont suggest I am introducing carriages into this, the reference as you will note was regarding how far he could walk without having to resort to carriages...which would cause noise.... as I said.

"His probable means shouldn't be too taxing to ascertain. Historical precedent, crime scene evidence and expert opinion would indicate a local or locally based offender. The overwhelming majority of men in that locality were relatively poor and working class. Ergo, the probability of the killer being a working class local man are markedly increased."

I would agree that most opinion has him based in the area, but on what grounds? Studies on killers since him? If he could walk, he could walk out of the area he kills in to go home. Before we assume he is poor and local, shouldnt there be some burden of proof to meet? We have no evidence on who he was, what he did, or how much money he may have had.

"Moreover, it's only reasonable to infer that success in evading capture may have been predicated, to an extent, on an ability to get off the streets shortly after the murders. It should hardly come as any great coincidental surprise, then, that in the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder, the killer headed East towards the heart of the murder district, not West towards comparative prosperity."

Two points....my suggestion included the possibility of one or more bolt holes...for dropping things off in. And in the case on the path he took after Mitre, the apron is the only lead in that regard, and he easily could have left it there just to deceive.

"As he could in a populated lodging house, which we know were popular with the criminal element in the district because they enabled their occupants to blend into an already dodgy crowd and become needles in haystacks, easily."

Granted, but we are not talking about petty thieves, gang members, arsonists, muggers....this fella was a criminal, but of a totally different cut than a common thief.

I think the fundamental differences we have are:

1. That he was most assuredly poor and a local resident
2. That the acts themselves would not cause him extensive bloodstaining
3. That he must have lived where he dropped organs off.
4. That he did not engage in any misdirection
5. That sneaking into loding houses in the middle of the night with bloodstains and organs to sleep in a communal ward would be something a man who doesnt want to be caught would do....or that Jack didnt have the means or the concerns for his own freedom to secure private quarters.

I do understand where you get some of the points you made Ben, lots of "by the book" Ripperologists would probably say the same things,...the only thing is,..there has never been one shred of evidence from the cases themselves to suggest that the Ripper was poor, was a resident of that Whitechapel/Spitafield district, and that he would not have blood on his clothing and hands.

We have some serial killer studies that show us.....well, hold on, these are not determined a series of kills by one man, they are suspected of being so. We do not know he was poor and local, just many Ripperologists believe that is so. We do not know that he didnt want to kill outdoors...we are just told by those same people that he would have preferred to kill indoors....to explain Mary Jane. And we dont know of he ever tried to mislead the investigations, we are just to assume that the apron was on route home.

Im sure you see my side Ben,...Ill accept the whole lot if you can offer one tiny bit of evidence that the killer was any of those things you suggest. Again,....a suspects wardrobe is evidence of nothing...it is suggestive, and also something a coy killer might factor into his evenings.

Best regards Ben...as always.

[perrymason]

One last thought, because Im sure people are as tired of reading my longer posts as I am writing them...

Risk taker #1: Acapulco Cliff Divers

These men and boys dive off a cliff at various heights in the narrowest part of a channel, each dive could easily kill them, cut them open, or cripple them. They do it multiple times a day. Yes they are poor mexicans, so they must do something for money, so do they just accept the danger and dive?.... and there are other ways to make money...fishing, tourists..but No.....they study the currents for days at a time, they measure the channel depths at various spots and times of day, ....and then they take the risks after having done their best to be sure they are diving at the safest spot, at the safest time. And they are paid primarily by donations, which means they may do this for nothing at times. Compulsions may well be as much of a driver as economics, when looking at the "series".

If Jack liked those kinds of risks too...ones that may cost your life, then whose to say he would'nt have "studied the currents", maybe walked some routes to see what options he would have.

Cheers Ben.

[Ben]

what I said was it would be preferable, and that there is nothing in evidence in any of the Canonicals that would give us any information about his financial means.

And I disagree already, Mike.

We examine the district in which the murders were committed, and discover it to have been populated in the main by the working class poor. We then examine other serial cases in which the crimes scenes are closely clustered, and find that the perpetrator in those cases usually has a bolt hole in that immediate area. We then juxtapose the two and arrive at the reasonable conclusion that the killer was more likely than not to have been a member of the working class poor (or not particularly well-off) in that district.

The fact that the preponderance of reliable eyewitness evidence also pointed towards a Joe Average from the district only lends additional credence to this.

I wont say that hiding in plain sight couldnt be effective, we know that It could have, but bloodstains and organs are far less trouble to a killer if he goes to a place where no-one could see him, if he took care to be quiet.

Again, I disagree on the grounds that you can't have any less trouble than "no trouble at all", as would have been the case with the larger lodging establishments. You talk about the killer taking "care to be quiet". In a crowded doss house, he didn't even have to do that!

As I mentioned, the case of the landlady at 22 Batty.....if her story is accurate, she is only aware her lodger came in late because he made noise while doing so

But he would have been noticed anyway. He was one of a very few, which increased the chances of his activities being noticed. In a doss house, that would not have been a problem. He could have been as noisy as he liked, secure in the knowledge that his esteemed establishment was choc-a-bloc with other men.

Again, the murders were committed in "the district we are interested in", that doesnt translate to his being a resident of that same district.

Frankly it should if we take the trouble to read a few books on history and criminology.

well, could you refer me to the data that shows we have determined that this killer didnt actually enjoy the outdoor venues and and that tension?

I'm not in the business of trying to prove a negative, Mike. If it's the assumption that Jack lived alone, and spurned the easy availability of his own private home in favour of risking himself unnecessarily on the streets, it's up to the assumers to prove their case. I've yet to see any reasonable counter to the suggestion that he resorted to the streets for want of better options. If we look at a few serial killers who did live alone and did have private transport, they tended to use their homes to dispose of their victims.

In fact, by mentioning Robert Picton (not Pickett), you usefully provide one such example. He visited the red light district from a few miles out because he could - he had a car, and he dispatched them where he lived because he could - he had a home (albeit with the possibility of others who were "in" on the act). That's precisely what I'm talking about. He didn't visit the red light district, kill his victims on the streets where he found them, in a small easily-walkable pocket of a particular district.

If he had neither private accomodation nor private transport, he may well have done.

The Picton example only reinforces my point.

Ben, I for the life of me cannot see why you think 5 murders involving slitting arteries and mutilations, and 3 of them including organs and viscera taken away with him, would result in "minor soiling".

Because that's what the preponderance of medical evidence says. Direct the bloodflow away from your person and garments, and you'd be unsoiled by blood. Your suggestion to the contrary is like pointing a water pistol at a window and wondering why you aren't getting wet. Yes, he placed his hands inside the abdomincal cavity post-mortem, but what was to prevent him removing his coat and rolling his sleeves for that purpose?

And in the case on the path he took after Mitre, the apron is the only lead in that regard, and he easily could have left it there just to deceive

By heading five minutes in the wrong direction? Towards police trafficking back and forth between two murder locations and two police stations, only to double back towards the other police force doing precsiely that. No. I'm afraid that's patently implausible.

Granted, but we are not talking about petty thieves, gang members, arsonists, muggers....this fella was a criminal, but of a totally different cut than a common thief

Doesn't matter. He was still a criminal, and the larger doss houses were popular with the criminals because they enabled them to continue there in their criminal ways.

there has never been one shred of evidence from the cases themselves to suggest that the Ripper was poor, was a resident of that Whitechapel/Spitafield district, and that he would not have blood on his clothing and hands.

Please not someone else who confounds evidence with proof, Mike. I've already explained why it is only reasonable to consider a local, non-wealthy offender in these crimes at the beginning of the post.

well, hold on, these are not determined a series of kills by one man, they are suspected of being so.

Again, Mike, that's completely nonsense. Of course there was a serial killer active in the district at that time. I admire many of your contributions, and have been saddended to see you attacked on occasions for expressing your views, but I rather think you expose yourself to them at times by seriously suggesting that it's only "assumed" that there was a serial killer active in the district. I know the "rank and file" may seem oppressive, even boring, at times, but when we challenge it is only circumsspect to do so within reason.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

there has never been one shred of evidence from the cases themselves to suggest that the Ripper was a resident of that Whitechapel/Spitafield district.

There was not one shred of evidence, until after they were caught, that...

Arthur Shawcross lived in Rochester, but he murdered in Rochester;
Gordon Cummins lived in London, but he murdered in London;
Peter Kürten lived in Düsseldorf, but he murdered in Düsseldorf;
Wayne Williams lived in Atlanta, but he murdered in Atlanta
Fred West lived in Gloucester, but he murdered in Gloucester;
H H Holmes lived in Chicago, but he murdered in Chicago;
Harold Shipman lived in Hyde, but he murdered in Hyde;
Dennis Rader lived in Wichita, but he murdered in Wichita;
Ian Brady lived in Manchester, but...

There are exceptions to every rule, naturally, but many of the exceptions to this "rule", if such it be, appear to have used a motor car to target some (but not all) of their victims out of town.

[perrymason]

Hi Ben, just to reply,..

Thanks for the Picton/Pickett thing, it seems turning 50 this year is something I should have taken more note of.

Youll be pleased to hear that Im not Lars or Fisherman when it comes to stamina on point rebuttals...these discussions for me are often as a Devils Advocate, because I extract more information from the folks Im discussing things with, and hopefully impart some new angle thinking on them in the process. Not all ideas are great, but whose are?

Heres the nutshell Ben for me.....1)the killings have no determined motive by experts or investigators,...other than serial madman,...2)we have only a few witness sightings with which to disect a mans status and means,...with really only Lawende as most likely to have seen him pre-kill, and clothing that could easily be a masquerade....3)no-one sees him post kill. 4) No trail is left...other than the apron. 5) He manages all this within a square mile....killing predictably on weekends or holidays sometime within the 28th of one month to the 9th of the next. 6) Women who were terrified were still being lured to their deaths during the series. 7) He is never caught over a victim...even by chance or happenstance. 8) He was able to move about the area virtually unnoticed during early morning hours. 9) He only kills during darkness, Annie was the latest and still some darkness remained, it was dusky. 9) If he lived within the immediate area, own his life would be compromised by the acts he does at night. Everyone was being questioned and bothered during the day about this, and Im sure a few people watched each other with slanted eyes....and 10) There seems to be ample evidence that the man who killed in public did not want to be caught....yet killed in public.

Some answers for these are:

1. There are motives undetermined yet, or not all were committed by one man, meaning the "series" concept may be skewing data.
2. We have no evidence to suggest what he has monetarily, but perhaps reason to speculate he may have had an occupation.
3. He consciously planned police avoidance and/or routes.
4. The only direction we can track is him moving from West to slightly North East....Goulston still may have been halfway home or further. I personally think the apron held organs, and that indicates he might have been close to home, but thats a guess, nothing more.
5. He had walking knowledge of virtually all of Londons East End.
6. Perhaps a lure of good money or as a new steady client with money was used as his entrance, rather than the docker with a few bob going home after shift.
7. He makes sure that his time over a victim is minimized, and that he knows multiple exits.
8. A gentleman who came into town often, and perhaps had "dates" where the woman doesnt get killed might go unnoticed based on frequency, as might a poor local beggar.
9. If he continued to kill in that same area where he lived, then he would have been placing himself under scrutiny...as every man approx age and height was...he would likely be questioned by cops, and his activities during the day would now be something he had to be conscious of,...everyone was watching everyone. If he kills then leaves 10-15 mintes walk away, then the murders are only headlines,...no cop is questioning his neighbours.
10. If he killed outdoors, he then accepted the risks that were a part of that experience. Did he do this willingly, or was he forced to continue to kill outdoors because he lacked a room? Thats the question.....and the jury is still out.

You deserve a shot back Ben, but Ill be less contentious from here on. And Im off for tonight.

But thanks for the comments, youve been a good sounding board and friend and advisor,...much appreciated my friend. As I said to Don recently, I really dont like disagreeing with you guys, I dont like hard feelings and emotional tirades myself...by either party. But it doesnt mean when I do that I disregard yours or anyones opinions or perspectives.

Frankly, I think as you do...I think he was local...but we dont have that right I believe...there is nothing in evidence that prevents a scenario from my latest suggested playbook. He could have walked in, and then walked out.

I will read any rebuttal tommorow pal, so if you want to, Ill hear ya.

If nothing else, take this away....I dont bother disagreeing with people who make no sense...what would be the point?

Bon Soir mon ami.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I sense you might have been playing devils advocate, but please be assured that I harbour no "hard feelings" or ill-will because of it.

I'll only reiterate that I'm not basing my assessment of the killer's likely financial status on anyone's "wardrobe". I'm basing on it on a knowledge of the social environment in which the murders were committed, the concentration of the crime scenes, and a knowledge of serial killers.

I wouldn't say that nobody saw him post-kill, but would argue that he wasn't noticed post-kill.

#9 I'd still have to quibble with very stongly. If the killer blended into the crowd and did not betray any outward and visible signs of mental disturbance, he was in a much better position to avoid suspicions from locals than an unrecognizable outsider - someone who was more likely to be remarked upon. Cops questioning neighbours would only have been a problem if there was anything suspicious for the neighbours to notice.

6. Perhaps a lure of good money or as a new steady client with money was used as his entrance, rather than the docker with a few bob going home after shift.

No, I rather prefer the docker with a few bob.

Tried, tested, local, and it wasn't as if the prostitutes were in a position to charge an appreciable amount for their services. In fact, anyone flashing excess cash around in that district was more likely to be conspicuous, and therefore more suspicious. A "gentleman" coming into town woul similarly seem odd, given the availability of higher class hooker in more "gentlemanly" quarters of Greater London.

But thanks for the comments, youve been a good sounding board and friend

Likewise, Mike!

Regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Ben, everyone,

Just like the thead on Dogma became a microscopic examination of one (1) murder scene, or put another way

Who let the Dogmas Out

this thread now has devolved on one divergent question only, was he local. So where does that leave DP's question, organized or disorganized?

I suppose that if the murderer came from without the immediate district, he would be organized. At least organized enough to find Whitechapel. On the other hand, what if he were organized in getting there, then once he did, acted in a disorganized fashion? Once the killing spirit took over his mind.

Or, conversely, if he did live there, he could be either of the two types the thread is about.

Roy

[perrymason]

There was not one shred of evidence, until after they were caught, that...

Arthur Shawcross lived in Rochester, but he murdered in Rochester;
Gordon Cummins lived in London, but he murdered in London;
Peter Kürten lived in Düsseldorf, but he murdered in Düsseldorf;
Wayne Williams lived in Atlanta, but he murdered in Atlanta
Fred West lived in Gloucester, but he murdered in Gloucester;
H H Holmes lived in Chicago, but he murdered in Chicago;
Harold Shipman lived in Hyde, but he murdered in Hyde;
Dennis Rader lived in Wichita, but he murdered in Wichita;
Ian Brady lived in Manchester, but...

There are exceptions to every rule, naturally, but many of the exceptions to this "rule", if such it be, appear to have used a motor car to target some (but not all) of their victims out of town.

Its my own fault checking once more before retiring...sorry I missed your post Sam, and you are one of the "folks" I referred to with Ben,....but as I screwed up, Picton killed East End Vancouver prostitutes, but lived almost an hour away. In his case he had a place to take them, but had he not, or if he had no car to go get them, he may have gone into town, killed, and left.....cause thats where the girls that he could lure for 20$ some smoke and cocaine worked. I know, I lived in Vancouver and saw that East End many times, I had a studio in Gastown. The Vancouver Police Department had their office a few block from my studio, smack in the heart of East Van, and they actually moved off the inlet a few miles away, citing "too much crime" in the neighborhood downtown. They did this while Picton was killing. A natural conclusion before finding Picton was wasted junkie murderer living in that area...you couldnt walk those streets without seeing some.

But he wasnt. He had a business. He dealt with people, and made a good living. But he had Mr Hyde in there too. Maybe Jack could have been a Victorian version....leaving his victims where he killed because he had no way to transport them quietly and subtly, or maybe he liked the thrill of knowing he was not only getting his kicks, but also scaring the crap out of the whole area at the same time.

I dont see why we should conclude he was local and poor based on the evidence alone. We really know nothing of him to make a profile of any kind....only that he was likely male....and he targetted women who were working the streets.

We cannot see in evidence a reason why we should conclude he was local other than geographic knowledge, or the ability to move about unnoticed it seems. Both could be accomplished by a non-local to the district with specific learned knowledge, with any amount of wealth we might imagine.

This argument is akin to another bigger one, which is why should certain victims even be on this list, and the answer that is often given for that is that "well, how many serial killer were likely to be running around simultaneously?" Probably very few....but there was evidence that someone or people cut two women to bits during that same time frame, and there are a few non-canonicals that may have been single killer scenarios.

So perhaps we already have one anomaly, multiple serial or multiple victim killers co-existing in a small geographical area. Why not a serial killer who commutes?

All the best Sam.....and Im really signing off for tonight....Ive got a call to take at 4am.

Cheers my friend.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The Picton example reinforces my earlier observation.

His crimes were characterized by his ownership of transport and a personal home, whereas I believe the ripper's crimes were characterized by a lack of both.

In his case he had a place to take them, but had he not, or if he had no car to go get them, he may have gone into town, killed, and left

See, this is what I'm challenging.

No, I don't think he would have done. Generally speaking, you don't find closely clustered serial murders being committed by a commuter. If ever we're to progress with the case we're discussing, we often have to sacrifice our own hypothesis in favour of learning from other serial cases (see Gareth's examples), especially if they're reinforced by crime scene evidence and expert opinion.

When the killer has private transport, we often find that he casts his net wider, because he can. The reverse occurs with serialits with no car. When the serialist has a home, we often find that the victims are dispatched and disposed of in that home (Picton, Dahmer, Nilsen), whereas in cases where the serialist lives with others, we often find him resorting to the sreets (Wright, Sutcliffe etc).

Without embracing knowledge learned from history and criminlogy, we're just hobbyists.

But he wasnt. He had a business. He dealt with people, and made a good living.

He was a working class butcher.

We really know nothing of him to make a profile of any kind

Experts in criminology and serial crime in particular say we can, and I agree. We know enough to arrive at informed, if not concrete, conclusions. By all means, continue to reiterate that we don't know X and can't prove Y, but that doesn't mean that all explanations acquire some equal probability of being right. They don't.