our killer been local

[pinkmoon]

I donīt think you have a valid point at all.

Why did not Chikatilo kill every day? Why did not Gacy kill every day? Why did not Berkowitz kill every day? Why did not Shawcross kill every day? Why did not ...

Why was there not more in these cases?

Because what they did was sufficient to quench their respective thirsts, thatīs why. Or because they felt that the risk was too large at some occasions.

The best,
Fisherman

Would our killer have taken such a risk on the night of the double event if he had lived locally .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.He would have realised that when stride was discoverd a lot of police and people would soon be in the area.

[Fisherman]

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 .

I donīt think you have a valid point at all.

Why did not Chikatilo kill every day? Why did not Gacy kill every day? Why did not Berkowitz kill every day? Why did not Shawcross kill every day? Why did not ...

Why was there not more in these cases?

Because what they did was sufficient to quench their respective thirsts, thatīs why. Or because they felt that the risk was too large at some occasions.

The best,
Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

I must say, some of the reasoning here seems backwards. 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? The starting point is surely with the man himself and his urge to kill and mutilate vulnerable females. 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?

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"? If they do they'd be completely wrong, given that we come from all over England (and one or two from abroad on occasion) and all have very different jobs and lifestyles.

The serial killer with his dark urges came first, before he worked out if, when and where he could indulge them. Yes, he may well have been fortunate enough to live and work right in among his unfortunate victims, but it ain't necessarily so.

Love,

Caz
X

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 .

[lynn cates]

urgent

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.

"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.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

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.

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?

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinkmoon,

Desperate yes but they would have been wary.

I agree with Graham when he says the murderer would 'have had even a small degree of outwards respectability about him'

He had to win them over. Now known local man could provide them with that confidence or someone with that outward respectability.

Best

Nick

Hi Nick,wary yes but the more hungry cold and thirsty they got the more desperate then it's case of welcome any Tom,dick,or Harry.

[caz]

I must say, some of the reasoning here seems backwards. 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? The starting point is surely with the man himself and his urge to kill and mutilate vulnerable females. 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?

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"? If they do they'd be completely wrong, given that we come from all over England (and one or two from abroad on occasion) and all have very different jobs and lifestyles.

The serial killer with his dark urges came first, before he worked out if, when and where he could indulge them. Yes, he may well have been fortunate enough to live and work right in among his unfortunate victims, but it ain't necessarily so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nick Spring]

If a women is prepared to have sex in the street for money she must be desperate sober or not.There is a very strong possibility that the victims approached our killer themselves

Hi Pinkmoon,

Desperate yes but they would have been wary.

I agree with Graham when he says the murderer would 'have had even a small degree of outwards respectability about him'

He had to win them over. Now known local man could provide them with that confidence or someone with that outward respectability.

Best

Nick

[pinkmoon]

An interesting point is the sobriety(or otherwise), of the victims at "Pick-up" time....Kate was sober by police standards.......

If a women is prepared to have sex in the street for money she must be desperate sober or not.There is a very strong possibility that the victims approached our killer themselves

[Steve S]

An interesting point is the sobriety(or otherwise), of the victims at "Pick-up" time....Kate was sober by police standards.......

[pinkmoon]

Obviously, whoever the killer was, he must have been someone fairly invisible in the area and community in which he operated; that is, someone whose presence on the streets at almost any time of day or night wouldn't draw attention to himself or cause undue alarm. The most obvious candidate would, of course, be a policeman in uniform, and this is an old theory. At least, in the Victorian era a serving policeman was, for want of a better word, 'monitored' by his superiors who, one presumes, knew roughly where he was and what he might have been doing at a given time. A policemen was also not anonymous - his existence and his duties were all down on paper. But somehow I don't think our man was a copper.

Another thing that occurs to me: it is accepted that all the victims, with the possible exception of Eddowes, were prostitutes 'on the game' and open for business, no pun intended. I would suspect - and here I must confess my complete ignorance of prostitutes and their modus operandi if they had one - that even though they might be desperate for a few coppers they would give prospective customers a swift once-over before concluding a deal. Maybe it's 21st century bias, but I'd have thought that a prostitute even in 1888 might be more inclined to accept business from a man who was at least fairly respectably dressed - i.e., someone who looked like he had the money to pay for her services. I may be completely up the creek here, of course, but I don't somehow think any prostitute would be all that interested in, or impressed by, some scruffy shabbily dressed tramp-like character. And I wonder if there might have been a touch of snobbery even amongst East End whores, who could boast to their friends that they'd been with a real toff. But I'm sure all this has been discussed before, way back on this Forum.

There's a website based on the 1891 Census listing all known occupations in Victorian London, at www.census1891.com/occupations.htm. I'm sure this site is well-known to many. It's a long, long list, but giving it a quick scan one occupation suggests itself as a possibility; that of bailiff. These people apparently worked around the clock, were on the streets, I'd assume they'd be fairly well-dressed, and could also be quite well-known in any debt-ridden neighbourhood such as the East End. I'm also assuming that a bailiff's duties in the LVP would roughly tally with those of a present-day bailiff.

I'm sure that there are loads more occupations which would fit the bill, it's just that I haven't gone all through that list. Hopefully I'm not being seduced by the age-old top-hat, cloak and Gladstone-bag image, but I do feel that our man might have had even a small degree of outwards respectability about him.

Graham

Hi Graham,like you I have never engaged the services of a "lady of the night" but I do think these women who fell to our killer would properly have gone of with anyone let's face it they must have been desperate to raise some money to pay for a bed for the night and to eat and of course feed their alcoholism

[pinkmoon]

Yes a named suspect counts for something.

Personally I don't think the graffito was anything to do with the killer but they should have waited and taken a photograph of it.

cheers

Nick

Hi Nick ,for over twenty years I took the graffiti and ripper letters seriously but I have now changed my mind.I do harbour the possibility that the lusk letter might be geniune but the rest no way.

[Fisherman]

I see that this thread, about whether or not the killer was a local, is gradually changing into a thread about whether the killer could possibly have been a carman....even perhaps a carman named...oh...how about Lechmere? Or Cross?

I wonder how that could have happened?

That happened because it was suggested that a man with an occupation that allowed for him to be out and about on the East End streets in the early morning could be the killer, together with the supposition that whoever he was, he would probably have been cool enough to stay away from hot-footing it after his killings.

That was an exact match for the Lechmere theory, and therefore, it deserved mentioning that there is such a man at hand, who answers the description.

Alternatively, I may have violated the unwritten rule not to mention Lechmere because Iīm a drooling idiot who cannot stay away from doing so whenever the opportunity arrives.

Is there anything more I can answer for you, Robert? Iīm a charitable soul, so donīt hesitate to ask.

Yours,
Fisherman

[Nick Spring]

How local is local?.....Back in the '70's I socialised in the East End...Visited it for work most days...But lived about 8 miles away......

Hi Steve,

I guess in this context local means living in or close to the vicinity.

8 miles is still close, Blackheath to Whitechapel must be nearly 8 miles

cheers

Nick

[Steve S]

How local is local?.....Back in the '70's I socialised in the East End...Visited it for work most days...But lived about 8 miles away......