our killer been local

[Fisherman]

Caz:

That's not the luck I was talking about, Fishypoo. I mean the luck that finds a man, who - quite extraordinarily - has the desire to murder and mutilate women, totally surrounded by easy prey purely by chance. It's like a kid with the sweetest tooth in England waking up to find his parents have moved into a sweet shop and upped his pocket money. Isn't there at least an equal chance that such a kid would have to save up and walk a couple of blocks to achieve his idea of heaven?

I never meant local-local, Caz. He could well live within walking distance of his prey - but he would not go hunting in unknown territory if I´m correct. He worked within a very restricted area, and the best guess is that this was a comfort zone to him.

Who said anything about grounds that were 'totally unknown' to him? Why do you feel the need to go to the other extreme? I am talking about a comfort zone that need not have coincided precisely with where the ripper lived or worked, because he could have been too well known in his own environment, or the streets may have been too well lit by comparison, or may not have benefited from so many potential victims. How do you know that his own 'zone' was in any way a comfortable one for his specific purposes? It's only simple if you know either way, which you simply don't.

You see - we agree. Sort of.

But are you suggesting the ripper deliberately took a job that would make it easier to get away with murder? If so, I can certainly accept that as a possibility. It's why many people who are attracted to children become teachers, priests, children's entertainers, scout leaders and so on. But if the job was unconnected to his murder plans then again it would be chance dictating, and he would still have had the desire to kill and mutilate, whatever his profession happened to be and wherever it took him. He'd still have needed a comfort zone that would not necessarily have been afforded by his home or work environment. And of course the ripper most likely had a connection to the comfort zone he chose for his murders; I never suggested otherwise. I just don't think the connection had to be as close as you evidently do.

I think we once again basically agree here.

Yes, it all looks so simple to presume he was most probably based among his victims, but you might want to explore how much this would have been by accident or design if it was the case. Don't forget, if he stayed in the area long after the last murder there was always a chance he would be recognised by one or more of the original witnesses - something anyone from outside would never have to fear.

Not among his victims, necessarily, no. But they EITHER were around in a place where he lived OR in a place that was a comfort zone to him. So once again, we agree.

Well 50/50 really, but possibly a slightly better bet for reasons I have already outlined: no house-to-house searches would have unearthed him or any evidence against him; no former witnesses would have seen him between murders or ever again.

How ´bout Doveton Street? No search, but close enough to the killing grounds, plus these grounds were very well known to the killer, who spent time on them daily. How´s that?

You don't just 'go bananas' by associating with prostitutes, Fishy. It's not a disease - at least not that kind of disease. I agree that the killer could have developed the urge to do such women harm alongside using them for the usual purposes, but not everyone lived in places where street walkers were that abundant and desperate. Serial killers are usually more capable than others of begging, borrowing or stealing their way out of the poorest and muckiest streets, so the ripper could have done just that and only returned for the rich pickings to be had there.

Oh-oh. Some DO go bananas by being confronted by prostitutes, Caz. Not all, not most, but some.
Otherwise, agreed. Again.

And that, if I may say so, was a downright dumb thing to say, because nobody is suggesting anything remotely like it. His pockets would be lined with Scotch in that case.

I am never downright dumb. Misunderstood, at times. Deliberately misinterpreted at other times here on Casebook (goes for all of us). I am just saying that the longer the trip, the greater the risks. That is not dumb. It is common sense.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Caz
i agree, but i think the "nurture" of the conditions in whitechapel at the time could have played a big role in the development of our budding serial killer.

Hi Abby,

Only if we presume he was already in Whitechapel when he was developing into a future serial killer. There is no reason to believe this was the case, but no evidence that it wasn't either.

Bad living conditions or harsh upbringings don't create serial killers or there would be millions of the buggers.

Plus higher population in the city than country so more of a chance the killer came from the city.

Only by sheer numbers; not, I suspect, as a percentage of each population.

I also have a hard time imagining a non local knowing the streets so well to always get away in the nick of time, a non local traveling into Goulston street to drop the apron and a non local being able to get prostitutes at the hieght of the scare to feel comfortable enough with him to go and be alone with him.

Possibly, but there must have been many non locals who used the prostitutes and got to know their way around the streets, and it only took one of them to be a potential serial killer with a very good reason for doing both.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is the meat & veg ( or Curry & rice ) of the matter Caz ..
Local verses Local knowledge even local connections doesn't necessarily have to point to a local man .

Speaking as a Londoner , there are many borough's (districts) in central London that can I can navigate my way around as if I were local to them ...
It really does not take long to become familiar with an area in any town in a very short amount of time .. especially if you make it your business to do so .

The killers main objective seems most likely to have been to obtain the victims uterus ( Polly , Annie , Kate ) and having the Skill and knowledge ( however much or less ) to find and remove them in Annie & Kate's case .. My problem with Lamplighters , street cleaners and Carmen is How would they know how to find and remove it & Why would they want it !

Good points, moonbegger. I doubt very much that a carman would have had the necessary knowhow to effect all the organ removals - but if Fishy can find evidence that one such paid to watch dissections I'll be like Prince Charles - all ears.

I don't think we need speculate why anyone would want those organs. The killer was not playing with a full deck, even though he seems to have known how to play.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I´m not half as "fishy" as you, Caz . But anyway, why would we pretend to think it was "pure luck"? If he lived locally, he would certainly know about the whereabouts of the local prostitutes - no luck about that.

That's not the luck I was talking about, Fishypoo. I mean the luck that finds a man, who - quite extraordinarily - has the desire to murder and mutilate women, totally surrounded by easy prey purely by chance. It's like a kid with the sweetest tooth in England waking up to find his parents have moved into a sweet shop and upped his pocket money. Isn't there at least an equal chance that such a kid would have to save up and walk a couple of blocks to achieve his idea of heaven?

The bottom line is that it is less likely that a serialist would strike on grounds that were totally unknown to him. There is normally a comfort zone involved, and the further away from it the killer moves, the less likely is it that he will strike. Simple, simple, simple ...

Who said anything about grounds that were 'totally unknown' to him? Why do you feel the need to go to the other extreme? I am talking about a comfort zone that need not have coincided precisely with where the ripper lived or worked, because he could have been too well known in his own environment, or the streets may have been too well lit by comparison, or may not have benefited from so many potential victims. How do you know that his own 'zone' was in any way a comfortable one for his specific purposes? It's only simple if you know either way, which you simply don't.

Is it backward reasoning to say that it is easier to have a job that allows you to stay under the radar in the murder area? Is it not instead a universal truth? Likewise, is it backwards reasoning to say that if a seriesd of kilolings take place in a restricted area, it´s a useful guess that the killer has some connection to that area?

But are you suggesting the ripper deliberately took a job that would make it easier to get away with murder? If so, I can certainly accept that as a possibility. It's why many people who are attracted to children become teachers, priests, children's entertainers, scout leaders and so on. But if the job was unconnected to his murder plans then again it would be chance dictating, and he would still have had the desire to kill and mutilate, whatever his profession happened to be and wherever it took him. He'd still have needed a comfort zone that would not necessarily have been afforded by his home or work environment. And of course the ripper most likely had a connection to the comfort zone he chose for his murders; I never suggested otherwise. I just don't think the connection had to be as close as you evidently do.

Yes, it all looks so simple to presume he was most probably based among his victims, but you might want to explore how much this would have been by accident or design if it was the case. Don't forget, if he stayed in the area long after the last murder there was always a chance he would be recognised by one or more of the original witnesses - something anyone from outside would never have to fear.

Reasoning like that, and accepting that only a minor fraction of the London population lived in Whitechapel, you would be suggesting that the chance that he was an outsider was the better bet, I take it

Well 50/50 really, but possibly a slightly better bet for reasons I have already outlined: no house-to-house searches would have unearthed him or any evidence against him; no former witnesses would have seen him between murders or ever again.

I don´t agree, I´m afraid - a person that lived very close by the Whitechapel prostitutes and rubbed shoulders with them on a daily basis would be the best bet to go bananas in my opinion. There were prostitutes all over London, and unless he favoured the Whitechapel ones specifically, why would he travel to kill?

You don't just 'go bananas' by associating with prostitutes, Fishy. It's not a disease - at least not that kind of disease. I agree that the killer could have developed the urge to do such women harm alongside using them for the usual purposes, but not everyone lived in places where street walkers were that abundant and desperate. Serial killers are usually more capable than others of begging, borrowing or stealing their way out of the poorest and muckiest streets, so the ripper could have done just that and only returned for the rich pickings to be had there.

It can´t be proven either way - but empirically, the comfort zone has proven very important to so many serialists that it would be downright dumb to look away from it. Plus there are all the other little things to weigh in - would he take the 5.52 train to Glasgow (where he naturally lived), his clothing soiled with blood and his pockets lined with innards?

And that, if I may say so, was a downright dumb thing to say, because nobody is suggesting anything remotely like it. His pockets would be lined with Scotch in that case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nick Spring]

We have to look at other serial cases.

In every single known serial case in which the murder and disposal locations being within walking distance of each other, the offender has turned out to be "local". There is not a single instance, to my knowledge, of a serial killer commuting into the same small locality every time and murdering/disposing his victims there. So for anyone who has taken the trouble to bone up a bit on other serial cases, there can be absolutely no question as the likely answer to the "local or not" question.

Hi Ben,

A very good point.

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

Best

Nick

[pinkmoon]

Which, for me, is the biggest strike against Isenschmidt who, in other respects, is a good candidate for at least two of the murders.

Look how these poor women lived selling their bodies for a few pennies they were desperate I think desperation must have clouded their judgement they went out on the street not because they wanted to but because they had no other way of making money.The added police presence would have scared a lot of punters of so they couldn't be to fussy who they did business with.

[Bridewell]

Peter Sutcliffe murdered relatively close to his home, albeit in a much more mobile age than the Ripper, yet even though he was questioned by police more than once, it was his confession that eventually nailed him.

That and the fact that he was caught, with a prostitute, in a car with false number plates, in possession of a ball-pein hammer by two inquisitive uniformed police officers.

[Bridewell]

would not a school teacher carry chalk with him?

When teaching, certainly; if and when disembowelling unfortunates - not necessarily.

[Bridewell]

Another issue would be that the murdered women seem to willingly have gone with our boy

Which, for me, is the biggest strike against Isenschmidt who, in other respects, is a good candidate for at least two of the murders.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I think I believe more in nature than nurture when it comes to producing serial killers. I may be wrong but I would expect roughly the same proportion of serial offenders in the making from tranquil rural areas as busy urban ones, although they would presumably be attracted to the latter precisely for the improved offending opportunities there.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
i agree, but i think the "nurture" of the conditions in whitechapel at the time could have played a big role in the development of our budding serial killer. like his mother was an alcoholic prostitute and or father was absent or abusive. alot of opportunity for abuse for someone growing up in those conditions. Plus higher population in the city than country so more of a chance the killer came from the city.

I also have a hard time imagining a non local knowing the streets so well to always get away in the nick of time, a non local traveling into Goulston street to drop the apron and a non local being able to get prostitutes at the hieght of the scare to feel comfortable enough with him to go and be alone with him.

I also agree with Ben that one needs to know the behaviour of other serial killers over history to see what is more probable in where they kill respective to where they live. They tend to kill close to where they live especially in the age before automobiles.

[Ben]

Was Harold Shipman a local of Hyde , greater Manchester ?

Yes..

[pinkmoon]

My "Insane General Gordon escaped from the Mahdi" one will beat the Red Indian one...........

Mine is based on fact and people will buy my book because they will won't to know how

[Steve S]

My "Insane General Gordon escaped from the Mahdi" one will beat the Red Indian one...........

[moonbegger]

In every single known serial case in which the murder and disposal locations being within walking distance of each other, the offender has turned out to be "local". There is not a single instance, to my knowledge, of a serial killer commuting into the same small locality every time and murdering/disposing his victims there. So for anyone who has taken the trouble to bone up a bit on other serial cases, there can be absolutely no question as the likely answer to the "local or not" question.

Was Harold Shipman a local of Hyde , greater Manchester ?

moonbegger

[pinkmoon]

Hi Abby,

I think I believe more in nature than nurture when it comes to producing serial killers. I may be wrong but I would expect roughly the same proportion of serial offenders in the making from tranquil rural areas as busy urban ones, although they would presumably be attracted to the latter precisely for the improved offending opportunities there.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz my dear,some people are just born bad evil if you want .some people have horrendous lives and are exposed to appalling things and don't go out killing people .Like the old poem says"some are born to sweet delight some are born to endless night"