Laura Richards knows who the ripper was

[PhiltheBear]

Hi, and thanks for the welcomes.

Let me say that although I haven't posted here I have read the board for some time and I am a regular on the JTRForum where Caz and I are often in competition...

I've been researching JtR for about 35 years now having started at the Bishopsgate Institute (which had a fine collection of JtR material many years ago) when I worked in the City. I'm also a Blue Badge Guide and used to conduct JtR walking tours.

My post on this subject was instigated because the main gist of what was being said misrepresented what Geographical Profiling is all about and I have to admit that specifying the crossroads where Wentworth Street meets Osborn Street was just a bit of mischief. (It IS correct - but only as the crow flies). The big problem with GP is that it would be better with more crime sites and the results point to the most likely place that the perpetrator operated from. That may not be his home - it could equally be a place of work or relaxation i.e. a pub. It's also not generally accurate to an individual place but indicates a measure of probability for an area.

If the perpetrator was local - and I contend that it's much, much more likely than a 'stranger' - then the highest probability is that he came from the Spitalfield's Rookery.

Phil,

I would disagree.

I think you could argue it the other way quite convincingly.

If, the argument goes, this is a man who knows all the nooks and crannies in which to duck and hide, then surely it follows he grew up in the locality and knew the people in the immediate vicinity.

He would have known some people. But there were thousands of people living in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area. I know the roads where I live but probably only know about 30-40 people to recognise and less than that to say hallo to. But it is true that where I live isn't anything like as highly populated as the East End was.

It follows thus it has to be asked: would he have killed in Mitre Square when we would surely have known the habits of people such as George Morris? would he have killed outside of a busy club knowing full well that he may have escaped by brandishing a knife, but he could easily have been recognised and would one day or the next have been well and truly ****ed.

Mitre Square was a fairly badly lit place. To hide in the corner would, apparently, have been fairly easy. In fact the locations bear out the possibility of a local man in that they are all (with the exception of Miller's Court) sufficiently far enough away from the Dorset St/Flower & Dean St area that he might easily have been known by only a few people, if any, in those areas.

If the counter argument is, well, he wasn't too concerned about his surroundings, then the argument surrounding the cunning use of back alleys and the like, is rendered redundant.

I think that were you to take a cross section of people wanting to keep something secret, they will and do travel to a point to which they are unknown but not too far away for no other reason bar convenience. Think of an adulterer meeting a woman in a quiet spot:the meeting will be close enough but not in the heart of where he lives.

The difference is that an adulterer will meet one person in the same quiet spot - very rarely different ones. The Rossmo argument is precisely what you said - "close enough but not in the heart of where he lives" but with the added premise that he won't travel too far either.

The argument to the effect that he must have known the streets very well, is clearly ill conceived. All he had to do was step into the street and walk down it. By the time the police had discovered the body, ran around, called for doctors, left someone with the body and then started the search, Jack was long gone. Look at the Eddowes murder: it was 10-20 minutes (probably towards the 20 mark) after the discovery of the body that they began to search. In that time Jack has walked around a mile.

But how would he know how long he had? Any of the crimes could have been discovered quickly - within one or two minutes. He wouldn't have known if a passer-by would appear instantly. But all of the murders were pretty much hidden from passing traffic. The streets were dark (-ish, gas lights aren't that bright) and if he were bloody then he'd want to get somewhere he could clean up fairly quickly. Don't forget that there was heightened tension, particularly after the first 2 canonical murders, there was a Watch Committee with volunteers patrolling the streets and the police were being urged to be vigilant.

The question I would ask is 'Why would he want to travel a long way and risk discovery?' Surely the lesser the distance the lesser the chance of being discovered?

Consider the area bounded by the canonical murders. The minimum distance he would have to travel to get outside would be from Hanbury Street to Berner Street (those being the 2 points closest together in the area covered - excluding White's Row which is inside the boundary made by the other 4). How long would that take to walk whilst avoiding being seen? The argument that he could walk up Brick Lane, a comparatively busy thoroughfare, with blood on his hands seems unlikely. It would be a minimum of 20 minutes. That's a long time if you want to avoid detection. Walking back to the rookery would take 10 minutes max.

As to the argument for being a 'commuter' or 'non-commuter' it would be necessary to argue that for him to 'commute' he would have been at more risk of discovery. And there is no reason to suppose a commuter. There are a number of things that point to a local man, over and above a non-local. For example, the fact that all victims had connections with the locale of the Spitalfield's Rookery between Dorset Street and Thrawl Street and might have been more trusting of someone they recognised. The Mitre St > Goulston St > Rookery route. The knowledge of where populated places were likely to be e.g. pub closing times, night time factories, etc.

I can see no case - at all - for a non-local. One thing in particular in Caz's argument needs refuting. The police wouldn't have searched the Rookery - and if they had they wouldn't have found anything. This was an area that police only went into 'mob-handed' and then only during daylight. Like the Old Nicholl's Rookery it was full of interlinked housing often with 'secret' passages between them that would enable miscreants to vanish instantly.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Personally, I do not think JTR was cruel.

I agree Beowulf. Not cruel like Chapman.

Helena

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, my brain hurts from reading all that - particularly as most of it doesn't represent accurately what Geographical Profiling really indicates.

There are basically 2 two types of offenders that GP deals with. One, which it pretty much can't help a lot with is the 'commuter' offender who travels from place A to the vicinity of place B to commit his crimes and then returns to place A. The second is where he travels from A directly to the crime scene and returns to A, where A is already within the vicinity of the crimes.

Now let's consider the observable facts. If the killer were to travel into the vicinity it increases his chances of being observed. We are quite possibly considering a man who has bloodied clothing and at some point may be carrying bloodied body parts when he returns home. It is much, much more likely that he would prefer not to travel long distances. Could he conceal himself? Unlikely. The only transport that would allow concealment would be some sort of carriage and it isn't likely that he would have used a cab - even if such a thing were to be found in the night in the East End.

It is likely, if the killer was local, that he would know the alleys and side-streets that would enable him to pass pretty much unnoticed from the crime scenes to wherever he lived.

Rossmo (and others) have theorised that a) a perpetrator is unlikely to commit crime too close to home and b) that he won't go more than a certain distance to do so. If that is correct then an initial analysis shows that the point from which he should start would be.....

The crossroads where Wentworth Street meets Osborn Street. (Just a very short walk from Flower and Dean).

Phil,

I would disagree.

I think you could argue it the other way quite convincingly.

If, the argument goes, this is a man who knows all the nooks and crannies in which to duck and hide, then surely it follows he grew up in the locality and knew the people in the immediate vicinity. It follows thus it has to be asked: would he have killed in Mitre Square when we would surely have known the habits of people such as George Morris? would he have killed outside of a busy club knowing full well that he may have escaped by brandishing a knife, but he could easily have been recognised and would one day or the next have been well and truly ****ed.

If the counter argument is, well, he wasn't too concerned about his surroundings, then the argument surrounding the cunning use of back alleys and the like, is rendered redundant.

I think that were you to take a cross section of people wanting to keep something secret, they will and do travel to a point to which they are unknown but not too far away for no other reason bar convenience. Think of an adulterer meeting a woman in a quiet spot:the meeting will be close enough but not in the heart of where he lives.

The argument to the effect that he must have known the streets very well, is clearly ill conceived. All he had to do was step into the street and walk down it. By the time the police had discovered the body, ran around, called for doctors, left someone with the body and then started the search, Jack was long gone. Look at the Eddowes murder: it was 10-20 minutes (probably towards the 20 mark) after the discovery of the body that they began to search. In that time Jack has walked around a mile.

[Bridewell]

Hi
Which also happens to be on a direct route from Mitre square, via Goulston st.

That certainly seems to be the direction he was heading in, always assuming that the dropping of the apron was an indicator of his direction of travel.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

Well, my brain hurts from reading all that - particularly as most of it doesn't represent accurately what Geographical Profiling really indicates.

There are basically 2 two types of offenders that GP deals with. One, which it pretty much can't help a lot with is the 'commuter' offender who travels from place A to the vicinity of place B to commit his crimes and then returns to place A. The second is where he travels from A directly to the crime scene and returns to A, where A is already within the vicinity of the crimes.

Now let's consider the observable facts. If the killer were to travel into the vicinity it increases his chances of being observed. We are quite possibly considering a man who has bloodied clothing and at some point may be carrying bloodied body parts when he returns home. It is much, much more likely that he would prefer not to travel long distances. Could he conceal himself? Unlikely. The only transport that would allow concealment would be some sort of carriage and it isn't likely that he would have used a cab - even if such a thing were to be found in the night in the East End.

It is likely, if the killer was local, that he would know the alleys and side-streets that would enable him to pass pretty much unnoticed from the crime scenes to wherever he lived.

Rossmo (and others) have theorised that a) a perpetrator is unlikely to commit crime too close to home and b) that he won't go more than a certain distance to do so. If that is correct then an initial analysis shows that the point from which he should start would be.....

The crossroads where Wentworth Street meets Osborn Street. (Just a very short walk from Flower and Dean).

Hi
Which also happens to be on a direct route from Mitre square, via Goulston st.

[caz]

There are basically 2 two types of offenders that GP deals with. One, which it pretty much can't help a lot with is the 'commuter' offender who travels from place A to the vicinity of place B to commit his crimes and then returns to place A. The second is where he travels from A directly to the crime scene and returns to A, where A is already within the vicinity of the crimes.

Now let's consider the observable facts. If the killer were to travel into the vicinity it increases his chances of being observed. We are quite possibly considering a man who has bloodied clothing and at some point may be carrying bloodied body parts when he returns home. It is much, much more likely that he would prefer not to travel long distances. Could he conceal himself? Unlikely. The only transport that would allow concealment would be some sort of carriage and it isn't likely that he would have used a cab - even if such a thing were to be found in the night in the East End.

It is likely, if the killer was local, that he would know the alleys and side-streets that would enable him to pass pretty much unnoticed from the crime scenes to wherever he lived.

Rossmo (and others) have theorised that a) a perpetrator is unlikely to commit crime too close to home and b) that he won't go more than a certain distance to do so. If that is correct then an initial analysis shows that the point from which he should start would be.....

The crossroads where Wentworth Street meets Osborn Street. (Just a very short walk from Flower and Dean).

The thing is, Phil, the area we are talking about was very small, and 'local' or 'commuter' offender alike would only have been walking its streets with incriminating evidence on his person for the same brief time it took either to reach 'home' in the centre (which would most likely be included in the police searches) or to be off on one of the main roads and away (where he was unlikely to be stopped in connection with a murder that may only just have been discovered). We know that if the killer was observed after a murder, nobody realised the fact. Once out of the immediate area (again, either back indoors or on a main road) what was there really for anyone to 'observe' and be suspicious about anyway? He merely had to avoid getting too close to any passers-by, in case there was sufficient light to notice any bloodstains.

Obviously a local man would have known his way around, but I doubt a commuting offender would have come totally unprepared. He could have lived or worked in the area at one time or another, or have used the prostitutes there because he wouldn't be recognised. Also, he merely had to find his way back to the main road where he could have picked up each victim. They were all found close to one where prostitutes were known to walk. So I don't find that argument at all compelling. Being local, a possible 'oddball' and also recognisable to other locals, would have had at least as many disadvantages as being just another anonymous face in an area teeming with temporary residents and workers of all types.

My argument is not that the killer is more likely to have been a commuter; it's that we just don't know either way, and both therefore remain distinct possibilities, since the offender was never caught, in or out of the area.

Love,

Caz
X

[Beowulf]

"The Scotland Yard team describe him as "frighteningly normal" but someone capable of "extraordinary cruelty"."

Personally, I do not think JTR was cruel. I don't think that was a motive in his behavior at all. He simply killed them asap to get possession of their bodies, so he could then do what he wanted...and THAT that he wanted to do was his sole motivation. I think he regarded the woman not at all. The person inside the body, their souls, so to speak, he was very unconcerned with.

The thing is, what WAS he thinking while he was 'playing around'? While actually at work exactly what WERE his thoughts?

For me that is one of the intriguing parts of the mystery of this case.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

Likewise...by the by, welcome to the boards!

Dave

[Bridewell]

Rossmo (and others) have theorised that a) a perpetrator is unlikely to commit crime too close to home and b) that he won't go more than a certain distance to do so. If that is correct then an initial analysis shows that the point from which he should start would be

The crossroads where Wentworth Street meets Osborn Street. (Just a very short walk from Flower and Dean)....

..

Hi Phil,

Welcome to the boards. I'm not sure it's possible to be that precise, but if you are suggesting that the killer was local man, you'll get no argument from me.

Regards, Bridewell

[PhiltheBear]

Well, my brain hurts from reading all that - particularly as most of it doesn't represent accurately what Geographical Profiling really indicates.

There are basically 2 two types of offenders that GP deals with. One, which it pretty much can't help a lot with is the 'commuter' offender who travels from place A to the vicinity of place B to commit his crimes and then returns to place A. The second is where he travels from A directly to the crime scene and returns to A, where A is already within the vicinity of the crimes.

Now let's consider the observable facts. If the killer were to travel into the vicinity it increases his chances of being observed. We are quite possibly considering a man who has bloodied clothing and at some point may be carrying bloodied body parts when he returns home. It is much, much more likely that he would prefer not to travel long distances. Could he conceal himself? Unlikely. The only transport that would allow concealment would be some sort of carriage and it isn't likely that he would have used a cab - even if such a thing were to be found in the night in the East End.

It is likely, if the killer was local, that he would know the alleys and side-streets that would enable him to pass pretty much unnoticed from the crime scenes to wherever he lived.

Rossmo (and others) have theorised that a) a perpetrator is unlikely to commit crime too close to home and b) that he won't go more than a certain distance to do so. If that is correct then an initial analysis shows that the point from which he should start would be.....

The crossroads where Wentworth Street meets Osborn Street. (Just a very short walk from Flower and Dean).

[Ben]

I'm not misunderstanding, Caz. I'm simply disagreeing.

In answer to your question, yes, I think Ireland would have avoided any situation which drew attention to that specific region in West Brompton, and selecting victims who lived close to the pub undoubtedly would have done. By spreading his murder locations far and wide - like most, if not all, commuter offenders - he ensured that his victim-procuring ground was largely concealed.

Serial killers whose murders are all committed within easy walking distance of each other are rarely, if ever, commuters.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Are you misunderstanding this on purpose, Ben?

Ireland commuted up to London from the East Coast to pick up men who would then take him back to wherever they happened to live. Are you saying he interrogated each man who chatted him up in the pub, to make sure they would have at least a taxi, bus or tube ride back to their place, and not, say, a ten minute walk?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

If the gay men he had picked up had taken him to a dark street near the pub for quick sex, or had all lived close to this pub

But my point is that this is precisely what Ireland would have sought to avoid because he was a "commuter". The same railways that took him to the pub also enabled him to spread his murder and disposal locations far and wide. To keep commuting into the same small area for the murders themselves would have ensured that investigative attention would have focussed heavily on that area, with the risk of apprehension increasing dramatically after each "commute". A potentially disastrous, but easily avoidable outcome.

This is why you will rarely encounter a commuter-type offender whose crimes are within easy walking distance of each other. That's not to say that on-foot "marauders" don't have the possibility of travelling elsewhere, but they may be more limited in terms of feasibility of escape on public transport, unfamiliarity with other parts of London etc.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

But it's not as if the Colherne in Fulham was used by a specific 'type' of gay man, yet Ireland chose this remote sweet shop to pick up goodies he could have got in a thousand other places between Southend and London.

If the gay men he had picked up had taken him to a dark street near the pub for quick sex, or had all lived close to this pub, you would have seen a similar pattern of victim locations to the ripper series and concluded the killer was your local ne'er do well - and been totally wrong. Ireland only used the same public transport as his victims had used to get home and be killed by him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Colin Ireland had access to 'modern' transport.

Exactly, Ruby.

I've never really understood the comparison between Ireland and the ripper in terms of his physical movements. While it is quite true that the former selected his victims from a specific location, his actual murder and disposal sites were very widely dispersed. Even if Ireland had not been caught, there was enough crime scene evidence for investigators to determine that the killer was using public transport. Not so with the Whitechapel murder, whose murder and disposal locations were all within very short walking distance of each other. Overwhelming evidence from other serial crimes should inform us that such small-scale criminal "maps" are usually (always?) perpetrated by men who walked to those locations from where they lived, which was often somewhere residing within the "circle" encompassing all murder sites or somewhere not far outside of it.

A "commuter", on the other hand, will rarely, if ever, "commute" into the same tiny region time and time again, in spite of the investigative focus being increased in that area after each murder committed there, and in spite of the prevalence of prostitutes elsewhere in London. It wasn't as though there was a specific "type" of prostitute that Jack preferred, who could only be found in Whitechapel and Spitalfields. We can't exclude the possibility of this exceptionally rare phenomenon occurring in the case of the Whitechapel murderers, but to accord it equal probability with the marauder model would be foolhardy, in my opinion.

All the best,
Ben