our killer been local

[Ben]

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.

[pinkmoon]

Greetings to each and every one of you ..



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 !

Although I did read somewhere , that just before the murders started a street sweeper was found dead and his cart was gone ... ahhh the Street sweeping surgeon theory is born

cheers

moonbegger

Not as good as my red Indian theory

[moonbegger]

Greetings to each and every one of you ..

When several of us go back time and again to the Monsoon in Brick Lane for a superb late afternoon curry on a Saturday, do people see us and say "Ah, they most probably live locally and have jobs here that fit round their meal time"?

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 !

Although I did read somewhere , that just before the murders started a street sweeper was found dead and his cart was gone ... ahhh the Street sweeping surgeon theory is born

cheers

moonbegger

[lynn cates]

agreeable people

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"The murders still required a very peculiar individual to be there to carry them out, but even more extraordinary good fortune not to be caught if this was a local lunatic, reacting spontaneously to something his victims said or did, but only while safely out of public view on both occasions."

Quite. So, we agree again.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Caz:

But Fishy, that's what I meant by backward reasoning. Yes, it might have helped, but it would be by pure luck in that case, and not planned that way by the killer.

Iīm 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.

For instance, if he had happened to live within a short walking distance of where Spitalfields unfortunates could typically be found and tempted with a few pence, but not actually on the same streets, do you imagine he would have said to himself "Hmmm, I don't think I dare risk it. If only I lived or worked right on top of all that easy prey I could safely act out my most violent fantasies"?

Letīs turn the question around - do YOU think that I think this? Letīs cut each other some intellectual slack, Caz. 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 ...

I suspect the risk would have been much the same, possibly even less, if he was simply able to vanish from those streets as soon as he had finished his bloody business there. No policemen were likely to be stopping and searching men on the main roads within the first minute or two of a murder being committed and after that he would be long gone. But if home had been very close to a murder, there was a good chance of a knock on the door while the killer was sleeping off the night's excesses.

Yes, but I am not speaking of his home specifically - I am speaking of his comfort zone. And in 1888, home and comfort zone would normally be close to each other. Take our carman, for example - he would have killed in areas where he had stayed all his life - but where he did not stay any longer. He has moved away some distance to the East, but he would be in his killing zone nevertheless when striking.

Exactly. So why do people looking at these very rare mutilation murders say "Ah, the individual who did this most probably happened to live locally and to have a certain job, because this would have helped immensely to get away with it"? It's backward reasoning.

Is it? 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, itīs a useful guess that the killer has some connection to that area?

I think not.

It would be wrong to posit these things as some sort of overall truth, and we cannot say that they apply in the Ripper case. But that does not make it backwards reasoning Iīm afraid. It is forwards resoning, comparing what other serialits do.

If his home or workplace was conveniently surrounded by plentiful prey, he might have considered it a bonus, but then one could argue that he planned where to live or work around his murderous ambitions. I think that would be just as likely as being there by pure chance when his destructive urge first came upon him.

No - that would depend on where he was, Caz. Too far away from his comfort zone and the chance WILL shrink. Statistically, this cannot be challenged. It can be challenged by exceptions only, and thatīs fair enough. But there you are.

I'm not - but's that's to suit everyday people who are not in the process of satisfying their more exotic tastes. If you have 'special' requirements that involve going the extra mile (eg travelling to the East End for the Whitechapel meetings, so you take advantage of one of the best curry restaurants you will ever eat in), you will do so. Jack's requirements were nothing if not extraordinary - and therefore he would have been extraordinarily lucky to be based by chance where those requirements could most easily be satisfied: teeming, anonymous Whitechapel.

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?

I donīt agree, Iīm 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?

It canīt 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?

I somehow donīt think so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Pinkmoon:

Would our killer have taken such a risk on the night of the double event if he had lived locally .

Good point - he does not come across as a risktaker, does he...?

If he was disturbed killing Liz stride why not simple go home and try again tomorrow instead of attacking another women in the same night.

Was it not you that suggested that he may not have wanted to chill between the deeds? And now you mean that he would have?
The popular theory, dating all the way back to the autumn of terror, is that he had blown his top, but been disturbed when trying to do something about it - then, unsatiated and frustrated, he got REALLY mad, sought out Eddowes and finally found a release. Think of the act of killing as sex, if you will - once aroused, he could not control himself.
Option two, as suggested by Tom Wescott - he had decided in advance to kill two women on the same night, to install fear in the Londoners. And therefore, he avoided too much bloodspilling that would have had him solied when killing Stride.

Take your pick! Iīd go with option one myself (sorry Tom!).

He would have realised that when stride was discoverd a lot of police and people would soon be in the area.

Yes - the Met would be all over the place. And what does he do? Exactly, he walks into City police territory when killing the next time. So heīs either clever or lucky. Or both. At any rate, he did NOT choose any venue close to Berner Street, so he was not even in that particular area for his next deed.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

It's a different era though, isn't it? People can take a taxi or a bus or the tube no problem to go to their favorite eateries, especially when meeting others at an equidistant place. In the LVP...even in my own town when I was a kid, people tended to frequent local places because it just felt comfortable. I think going more than a few blocks for someone who wanted to do what he did, would have taken him out of his comfort zone. My bet is that JTR worked, lived, and played in the area. Is it a certainty? No. It just seems more likely than not to me.

Cheers,

Mike

Hmmm, well I come up to London from Somerset on a coach every other month, because it's more reliable and a lot cheaper than the train. In the LVP trains were arguably more reliable, more frequent, served more areas and were faster than they are today.

But I do take your point, and I certainly wasn't arguing for Jack travelling for hours only to kill out of his comfort zone.

I just think it's as likely as not (ie 50/50) that he wasn't already in prime ripping territory by happenstance and therefore walked those few blocks and made himself at home.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

And even if there was a knock on the door, in those days before precise forensic science, how would the police be able to ascertain that whoever was behind that door had just committed a murder? Even if whoever it was had blood on him, that would only be seen as circumstantial evidence, as blood-grouping hadn't been discovered. Indeed, I believe there was no real way of differentiating between human and animal blood. In 1888, and possibly for a few years afterwards, a murderer could really only be nailed if he was caught in the act, or if there was some inarguable evidential link between victim and suspect. I recall reading that a strangler was nailed because a large ring he was wearing had left an imprint on the victim's neck.

And Jack came very close to being caught in the act.

I'm only hypothesising, as we all are, really.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Indeed, but it would still have been a touch harder for the police to get their man if he wasn't even in the area by the time they had discovered one of his crimes and raised the alarm.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

unless the teeming anonymous whitechapel conditions helped produce the serial killer that lived there.

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

[The Good Michael]

When several of us go back time and again to the Monsoon in Brick Lane for a superb late afternoon curry on a Saturday, do people see us and say "Ah, they most probably live locally and have jobs here that fit round their meal time"?

It's a different era though, isn't it? People can take a taxi or a bus or the tube no problem to go to their favorite eateries, especially when meeting others at an equidistant place. In the LVP...even in my own town when I was a kid, people tended to frequent local places because it just felt comfortable. I think going more than a few blocks for someone who wanted to do what he did, would have taken him out of his comfort zone. My bet is that JTR worked, lived, and played in the area. Is it a certainty? No. It just seems more likely than not to me.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

Afternoon caz,I think for people to dismiss a suspect just because he dosnt live locally is wrong .It is quite possible our killer had visited the area and used the services of the prostitutes for years so he would have fitted in.I do think I have a valid point that if our killer lived in the centre of the murders then why wasn't there more .

Hi Pinky,

I agree - in this case he would have fitted in by being familiar with the area, without necessarily being recognisable, if he was just popping in and out or passing through, like so many other unremarkable faces.

It's also possible that he was only ever comfortable killing close to where it all began, and stopped (whenever that was) because the environment was changing all the time and he grew less and less comfortable with it, but couldn't contemplate starting again anywhere else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

But if home had been very close to a murder, there was a good chance of a knock on the door while the killer was sleeping off the night's excesses.

And even if there was a knock on the door, in those days before precise forensic science, how would the police be able to ascertain that whoever was behind that door had just committed a murder? Even if whoever it was had blood on him, that would only be seen as circumstantial evidence, as blood-grouping hadn't been discovered. Indeed, I believe there was no real way of differentiating between human and animal blood. In 1888, and possibly for a few years afterwards, a murderer could really only be nailed if he was caught in the act, or if there was some inarguable evidential link between victim and suspect. I recall reading that a strangler was nailed because a large ring he was wearing had left an imprint on the victim's neck.

And Jack came very close to being caught in the act.

I'm only hypothesising, as we all are, really.

Graham

[Abby Normal]

But Fishy, that's what I meant by backward reasoning. Yes, it might have helped, but it would be by pure luck in that case, and not planned that way by the killer.

For instance, if he had happened to live within a short walking distance of where Spitalfields unfortunates could typically be found and tempted with a few pence, but not actually on the same streets, do you imagine he would have said to himself "Hmmm, I don't think I dare risk it. If only I lived or worked right on top of all that easy prey I could safely act out my most violent fantasies"?

I suspect the risk would have been much the same, possibly even less, if he was simply able to vanish from those streets as soon as he had finished his bloody business there. No policemen were likely to be stopping and searching men on the main roads within the first minute or two of a murder being committed and after that he would be long gone. But if home had been very close to a murder, there was a good chance of a knock on the door while the killer was sleeping off the night's excesses.



Exactly. So why do people looking at these very rare mutilation murders say "Ah, the individual who did this most probably happened to live locally and to have a certain job, because this would have helped immensely to get away with it"? It's backward reasoning. If his home or workplace was conveniently surrounded by plentiful prey, he might have considered it a bonus, but then one could argue that he planned where to live or work around his murderous ambitions. I think that would be just as likely as being there by pure chance when his destructive urge first came upon him.



I'm not - but's that's to suit everyday people who are not in the process of satisfying their more exotic tastes. If you have 'special' requirements that involve going the extra mile (eg travelling to the East End for the Whitechapel meetings, so you take advantage of one of the best curry restaurants you will ever eat in), you will do so. Jack's requirements were nothing if not extraordinary - and therefore he would have been extraordinarily lucky to be based by chance where those requirements could most easily be satisfied: teeming, anonymous Whitechapel.

Love,

Caz
X

unless the teeming anonymous whitechapel conditions helped produce the serial killer that lived there.

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

"Can the mere fact that the killer got away with these murders really tell us anything about where he most likely lived or worked, or what he did for a living?"

Not in my estimation.

Thanks Lynn. We agree on something then!

"The starting point is surely with the man himself and his urge to kill and mutilate vulnerable females."

Or perhaps with the murders themselves? I'd hold off on the dark urges until a proper psychologist were consulted.

Even if you are only taking two murders into consideration here - that of Nichols and Chapman - I'm not sure you can presume these attacks came out of the blue, although there may have been little planning (beyond carrying the conveniently lethal blade of course). The murders still required a very peculiar individual to be there to carry them out, but even more extraordinary good fortune not to be caught if this was a local lunatic, reacting spontaneously to something his victims said or did, but only while safely out of public view on both occasions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz:

Are we to conclude that just because he did it several times in a very small area, and managed not to be seen in the act or identified, he was by pure coincidence already based in this ideal spot, and also in an ideal occupation, for acting out his rather specific fantasies?

No. We are just to acknowledge that it would help immensely.

But Fishy, that's what I meant by backward reasoning. Yes, it might have helped, but it would be by pure luck in that case, and not planned that way by the killer.

For instance, if he had happened to live within a short walking distance of where Spitalfields unfortunates could typically be found and tempted with a few pence, but not actually on the same streets, do you imagine he would have said to himself "Hmmm, I don't think I dare risk it. If only I lived or worked right on top of all that easy prey I could safely act out my most violent fantasies"?

I suspect the risk would have been much the same, possibly even less, if he was simply able to vanish from those streets as soon as he had finished his bloody business there. No policemen were likely to be stopping and searching men on the main roads within the first minute or two of a murder being committed and after that he would be long gone. But if home had been very close to a murder, there was a good chance of a knock on the door while the killer was sleeping off the night's excesses.

When several of us go back time and again to the Monsoon in Brick Lane for a superb late afternoon curry on a Saturday, do people see us and say "Ah, they most probably live locally and have jobs here that fit round their meal time"?

I donīt think so. Why would they?

Exactly. So why do people looking at these very rare mutilation murders say "Ah, the individual who did this most probably happened to live locally and to have a certain job, because this would have helped immensely to get away with it"? It's backward reasoning. If his home or workplace was conveniently surrounded by plentiful prey, he might have considered it a bonus, but then one could argue that he planned where to live or work around his murderous ambitions. I think that would be just as likely as being there by pure chance when his destructive urge first came upon him.

Then again, there WILL be a relation between living premises and restaurants, in the respect that people often eat locally. And the more often people turn to a specific establishment, the more credible it will be that they ARE locals. Letīs not try and deny that.

I'm not - but's that's to suit everyday people who are not in the process of satisfying their more exotic tastes. If you have 'special' requirements that involve going the extra mile (eg travelling to the East End for the Whitechapel meetings, so you take advantage of one of the best curry restaurants you will ever eat in), you will do so. Jack's requirements were nothing if not extraordinary - and therefore he would have been extraordinarily lucky to be based by chance where those requirements could most easily be satisfied: teeming, anonymous Whitechapel.

Love,

Caz
X