our killer been local

[Errata]

Quite possible that our killer had visited the area and used the services of the prostitutes for a long time .This would explain how willing they seemed to be to go off with him however that dosnt mean he lived locally.

Well how local is local? I live in the American south, so anything within a half hour drive is local. We're a little spread out. Now I know the neighborhoods of New York, and there is a certain separateness that they are proud of, but everybody knows Manhattan no mater where they live in the city. And most people know about three neighborhoods really well. By modern standards, anyone in the city of London was local. And I'm not entirely certain that this guy had to know Whitechapel really well. I mean, I navigate most cities based on three or four major streets (sites really, but whatever). If the killer needs to get away, and the major thoroughfare is south, how local does he have to be to head south? Or even just retrace his steps? We have sort of already conceded the point that he's not picking the kill site, so all he has to do is follow someone. He doesn't betray any special knowledge of the area. Now I can understand why a German sailor fresh off the boat couldn't commit these crimes, but why not some guy a dozen tube stops down? Why does he have to be more local than London? Prostitutes are not choosy. They will go off with anyone who has money. They don't need to know him, or even be familiar with him.

[pinkmoon]

Well, I'm sure the police had already made that observation.




Further afield from where? - we don't know where he came from to begin with, -Finchley, Southwark, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel?

I was raised just outside Leeds, if you wanted a prostitute, you went to Chapeltown - pure logic.
Why not credit 'Jack' with using the same degree of logic?

Quite possible that our killer had visited the area and used the services of the prostitutes for a long time .This would explain how willing they seemed to be to go off with him however that dosnt mean he lived locally.

[Wickerman]

I would suggest that the geographical and time related distribution of the bodies should tell us something about the moments available to the culprit to commit these crimes.

Well, I'm sure the police had already made that observation.

No doubt theoretically he could have walked further afield - but I think the fact that he didn't points to the likelihood that it wasn't practical for him to do so.

Further afield from where? - we don't know where he came from to begin with, -Finchley, Southwark, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel?

I was raised just outside Leeds, if you wanted a prostitute, you went to Chapeltown - pure logic.
Why not credit 'Jack' with using the same degree of logic?

[Errata]

Pseudo-intellectual and largely meaningless reasoning aside, I have long thought that as the Ripper operated in so confined an area he may well have been slightly challenged, in the brain department. If his aim in life was to get his kicks from murdering prostitutes, as it seemed to be, then I'd have thought that to reduce the possibility of detection he might have spread himself about a bit, geographically. I kind of of get the feeling that our Jack wasn't really too familiar with what we might term 'reality', and just went and did what his crazy mind told him to, even if he needed to go not much further than a hundred or so yards from his front door; if indeed he had a front door.

Peter Sutcliffe had the nous to move around a bit, thus to confuse the powers of law and order. No reason why the Ripper shouldn't have done the same, if he'd been a sensible type of serial killer.

Graham

Barring the fact that his aim in life was probably not to get kicks from murdering prostitutes, it kind of depends on what you by "slightly challenged". Intellectual or learning handicaps have nothing to do with a persons perception of reality. All types of people kill. There was a sad case my cousin prosecuted where mentally handicapped man killed his mother, and then circled the block until the police caught him. He was circling the block because he wasn't allowed to cross the street without holding his mother's hand. Externally enforced boundaries are not uncommon with the mentally handicapped. So yeah, he may not have gone more than 100 yards past his front door, because he wasn't allowed to.
On the other hand if you mean crazy, well there are all kinds of crazy. But nothing in the realm of psychosis really fits. Hallucinations, lives in a different reality, delusions, etc. Does not make a murderer of prostitutes. It might make a murderer of women, but the ability to select a type certainly doesn't go with hallucinations, and loss of reality. Delusions maybe, but delusions also tend to simplify. A person with delusions may in fact seek out prostitutes to kill. But it is far more likely that any woman he sees is going to be seen as a prostitute, and therefore fair game. So then we are talking about a trigger, actually being solicited by a prostitute, but theres no evidence two of them were even soliciting at all. And even then he has to keep his murder kit on him at all times if hes going to able to act on a trigger, and that takes planning, something delusional people do not excel at.
But if you mean crazy in the fact that we are talking about a guy who likely did not conform to social norms and likely didn't even see why he should, a man who was dangerous if for no other reason than the survival of the human race didn't interest him, much less the survival of an individual, then yeah. Why the hell not?

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that the geographical and time related distribution of the bodies should tell us something about the moments available to the culprit to commit these crimes.
No doubt theoretically he could have walked further afield - but I think the fact that he didn't points to the likelihood that it wasn't practical for him to do so.

[Ben]

Hi Graham,

Peter Sutcliffe had the nous to move around a bit, thus to confuse the powers of law and order. No reason why the Ripper shouldn't have done the same, if he'd been a sensible type of serial killer.

If there's a crucial difference here, it's Sutcliffe's ownership of a private vehicle that enabled him to cast his net wider. It is likely that the ripper did precisely as you describe, i.e. "move around a bit" albeit with the obvious limitations of operating on foot.

All the best,
Ben

[Graham]

Pseudo-intellectual and largely meaningless reasoning aside, I have long thought that as the Ripper operated in so confined an area he may well have been slightly challenged, in the brain department. If his aim in life was to get his kicks from murdering prostitutes, as it seemed to be, then I'd have thought that to reduce the possibility of detection he might have spread himself about a bit, geographically. I kind of of get the feeling that our Jack wasn't really too familiar with what we might term 'reality', and just went and did what his crazy mind told him to, even if he needed to go not much further than a hundred or so yards from his front door; if indeed he had a front door.

Peter Sutcliffe had the nous to move around a bit, thus to confuse the powers of law and order. No reason why the Ripper shouldn't have done the same, if he'd been a sensible type of serial killer.

Graham

[Wickerman]

Yes, the killer could have lived local.
"Local" does not mean he is a dosser, there were plenty of working class homes in the area.
On the other hand he may have been born and raised in the East End, but now lives up in Hackney, or south of the river - within easy reach of Whitechapel. He would still be familiar with the streets and many people may remember him, be able to swear to him being "a good sort".

We simply do not know one way or the other, anything is possible.

[pinkmoon]

Hi,
I would say that the killer was either a local resident, or worked local, the reason why he did not venture to other sites, was most likely because he was possibly, either in a relationship where he was not free to roam away without suspicion , most likely working nights, and able to combine the murders whilst employed.
I cannot visualize the killer being a commuter , it would present too many risks , as if there was not enough already.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,our killer certainly knew where to find easy victims for his foul deeds also he knew in that area that if he was seen that not to many people would be willing to come forward

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would say that the killer was either a local resident, or worked local, the reason why he did not venture to other sites, was most likely because he was possibly, either in a relationship where he was not free to roam away without suspicion , most likely working nights, and able to combine the murders whilst employed.
I cannot visualize the killer being a commuter , it would present too many risks , as if there was not enough already.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Excellent points, Errata.

I think history and experience should pretty much dispense with any serious consideration that it's too "coincidental" for a prostitute killer to be found living where his victims live and work. It's rather backwards reasoning to my mind, and predicated on the false notion that serial killers pick their victim type at random. The exposure and proximity to the intended victim type will always come first. Did it mean that he sought them out in a non-criminal capacity first? Yes, almost certainly, but that doesn't mean he had any criminal designs on them when he did, at least not in the early stages. And as you sensibly point out, he was hardly compelled to go to Whitechapel for that purpose. Prostitution existed in large numbers throughout London.

Hi Caz,

Whether that meant on the very street where he lived, or just round the corner (which could have been by happy accident or cunning design), or he had to walk a bit further to get to the nearest reliable source of vulnerable street walkers, is not something that can easily be ascertained from the evidence

The vast majority of known serial killers base their victim type on exposure to that type in a non-criminal, non-nefarious capacity, usually before it even occurred to them to make this "type" their prey.

There is, to my knowledge, not a single known example of a serial offender killing and disposing of his victims in a small neighbourhood to which he commutes to each time, and the reasons for this should be startlingly apparent. The tiny region in which Jack killed, mutilated and disposed of his victims became subject to more intense scrutiny as the murder toll rose, and yet we're expected to believe that a killer with means to travel didn't consider it prudent to "commute" to different places, as all commuter serialists have done.

Any particular reason why it isn't the safer bet to assume he belongs with the overwhelming majority of serial killers with regard to the commuter/marauder issue?

All the best,
Ben

[Errata]

I've never heard such utter tripe, Ben! You make it sound like it's the victims' fault for being around in such numbers that a susceptible male had almost no choice but to be exposed to them and tempted into attacking them. Isn't it a fact that serial offenders will be attracted to wherever they can act out their fantasies on their preferred victim type to the greatest effect for the least effort? Hence child molesters/killers may be tempted into the teaching profession on false pretences; killers of college students will hang around the places where they socialise; and prostitute killers will sniff around red light districts.

Did Harold Shipman only develop fantasies about putting all his patients to sleep precisely because he was naturally surrounded by them when he became a GP?

Did Ted Bundy develop violent fantasies about young women because every other young person he ever encountered was likely to be a female of the species?

How did Colin Ireland develop violent fantasies about gay men in that case, unless you are suggesting he found himself exposed to them in droves every time he left the house?

I agree that prostitute killers most probably use prostitutes. But they choose to be exposed to them, and they choose when to use them or abuse them, so they are comfortable doing both and know they make easy victims. The most you can say is that the ripper (clearly) made it his business to go where his idea of easy prey could be found. Whether that meant on the very street where he lived, or just round the corner (which could have been by happy accident or cunning design), or he had to walk a bit further to get to the nearest reliable source of vulnerable street walkers, is not something that can easily be ascertained from the evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

There is a point to what Ben was saying. Most fantasy/fetish serial killer fantasies are rooted on a single individual, and the murders run to that type. What that type is depends on the killer, but it does mean actual exposure to fantasy person. Therefore, the person linked to original fantasy is local. A person the killer sees and fixates on. They could be a regular out of towner, like a visiting aunt, but local in the sense as common to the killer.

Harold Shipman was an Angel Of Mercy. Different pathology, different criteria.

Ted Bundy's victims all bore a superficial resemblance to a woman who rejected him. While the rejection did not make him a killer, it certainly makes sense that after this breakup his violent fantasies began to star her.

I don't know about Colin Ireland, But I do know that Jeff Dahmer's original fantasies centered around a man who jogged through the neighborhood every day. In fact that man was his first attempted victim. Dahmer did not understand homosexuality at that point, ans the fantasy actually scared him. Not for the violence or the intention, but because he didn't understand why it centered around a man. His initial fantasy was in essence the fantasy he tries to live out when he started killing.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the Ripper's fantasy centered around someone common in his life. Because he chose to kill prostitutes, and did not target any other women who were technically as vulnerable, we can assume that it was important to him that the women he killed were prostitutes. It is a fair assumption that he stalked the neighborhood for awhile, familiarizing himself with the faces. It might explain why he killed some women who were not actually soliciting. He knew their faces from his research. If he was trying to match a fantasy in his head, something all fetish killers do, then we can assume that the woman of his fantasy was a prostitute. Whether it was someone he knew well, or just a woman he walked past every day, there is no way to know. But the environment in the fantasy is also important. For Bundy it was the woods. Dahmer had to be in his own place. Kemper needed cars. The Ripper likely needed Whitechapel. And if he was tying to stay as close to the fantasy as possible, that would mean his "muse" and his interaction with her was in Whitechapel.

Which doesn't mean he was a local boy, he could have simply passed through every day. But he knew the area enough to need it for his fantasy. Whitechapel was for him as important as the woods were to Bundy. Killers do go where the victims are. But for killers like the Ripper, like Bundy, like Dahmer the environment of the kill is as important as the victim. A man may become a teacher to have access to children, but typically thats not where he kills them. The school is for the access. The scene is for the fantasy. Bundy picked up women all over the place. Killed them all over the place. But dumped them in the woods. That was for the fantasy. The Ripper killed and dumped in Whitechapel. The fantasy has to center around that, or he would have killed elsewhere. Whitechapel was not the only neighborhood of whores.

[moonbegger]

The killer was not playing with a full deck, even though he seems to have known how to play.

X

Yes indeed Caz , but were the Jacks wild

moonbegger

[caz]

In real life, the susceptible individual will develop violent fantasies about women precisely because of where he lives, and precisely because of his exposure to the prevalence of prostitution in the area, and the likelihood that he took advantage of their services.

I've never heard such utter tripe, Ben! You make it sound like it's the victims' fault for being around in such numbers that a susceptible male had almost no choice but to be exposed to them and tempted into attacking them. Isn't it a fact that serial offenders will be attracted to wherever they can act out their fantasies on their preferred victim type to the greatest effect for the least effort? Hence child molesters/killers may be tempted into the teaching profession on false pretences; killers of college students will hang around the places where they socialise; and prostitute killers will sniff around red light districts.

Did Harold Shipman only develop fantasies about putting all his patients to sleep precisely because he was naturally surrounded by them when he became a GP?

Did Ted Bundy develop violent fantasies about young women because every other young person he ever encountered was likely to be a female of the species?

How did Colin Ireland develop violent fantasies about gay men in that case, unless you are suggesting he found himself exposed to them in droves every time he left the house?

I agree that prostitute killers most probably use prostitutes. But they choose to be exposed to them, and they choose when to use them or abuse them, so they are comfortable doing both and know they make easy victims. The most you can say is that the ripper (clearly) made it his business to go where his idea of easy prey could be found. Whether that meant on the very street where he lived, or just round the corner (which could have been by happy accident or cunning design), or he had to walk a bit further to get to the nearest reliable source of vulnerable street walkers, is not something that can easily be ascertained from the evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

It could however include someone who was local to the area as opposed to of the area, if you see what I mean.

I do indeed, Nick, and a good point it is too!

Hi all,

I'm at a loss as to understand the "coincidence" argument.

Serial killers will often base their fantasies on the people they have most exposure to in day-to-day life. Prostitute killers will invariably turn out to be men who had a lot of experience with prostitutes, in the same way that murderers of college students will often have had a good deal of social interaction with undergraduates. School teacher Andrei Chikatilo killed children (gosh, what a cheery subject we discuss), and so on and so forth.

No serial killer has ever reached a certain point in life and decided, "Hey, I know, I think I'll become a serial killer, but what type of victims shall I go for? Hmmm...eeeny meeny, miny, mo - prostitutes! And $hit the bed! Check out my luck, I'm only surrounded by them! What a lucky, lucky coincidence!"

No.

It doesn't work like that.

In real life, the susceptible individual will develop violent fantasies about women precisely because of where he lives, and precisely because of his exposure to the prevalence of prostitution in the area, and the likelihood that he took advantage of their services.

No luck factor here at all.