our killer been local

[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

[Steve S]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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 .

[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 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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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