our killer been local

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Bridewell]

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.

But nor does it mean that he didn't.

[Wickerman]

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.

The idea that he had to know Whitechapel to get away so completely every time, has really been overblown.
In those days to be caught you really had to be seen standing over the body. So long as the killer was not seen with the body, and made it around the nearest corner, he was as good as scot-free. It wouldn't matter where he went after that. He could have simply stopped at the nearest coffee-stall in Whitechapel road and observed the hue and cry from behind a hot cup of steaming coffee.

I just think some are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Ben]

There is evidence that the killer did not use the main thoroughfares to make his escapes. This holds especially true for the Eddowes murder when, in all likelihood, he took the most direct route to the apron disposal location - Gravel Lane, Stoney Street, New Goulston Street etc - which would reasonably have necessitated a prior knowledge of those alleyways and where they led to. The sort of knowledge that a non-local probably wouldn't have had. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that a non-local ripper could afford to be a bit relaxed and casual about his escapes because he could not be pinned to the crime scene. At the very least, he could forget any future ripping if caught literally red-handed with a sharp knife and an overcoat-load of fresh innards.

I'm utterly perplexed, if I'm honest, by the resistance expressed by some towards the obvious, likely, and mainstream view that the ripper was a local man. The vast majority of serial killers with a "criminal map" similar to the ripper's in terms of distribution have turned out to be local.

[Graham]

Jon,

I just think some are making a mountain out of a molehill

.

I said the same on another thread, intending it to apply to most current Ripper discussions.

And as any reader of the Sherlock Holmes stories will know, the police in those days usually needed a murderer to be nabbed red-handed in the act before he could be given up to justice with a good chance of getting his just desserts; it needed a Holmes to solve a case remotely, so to speak...........

Graham