our killer been local

[Wickerman]

You've just finished lecturing me, very tediously, on the most successful way of ensuring that the "atmosphere on Casebook discussions" improves, and yet here I find you accusing me, irritatingly and completely without foundation, of passing assumptions off as facts. But look at the very careful terminology I used:

"There is evidence that the killer did not use the main thoroughfares to make his escapes"

I'm not saying it's a fact. I'm just saying there is evidence. Please acquaint yourself with that crucial, if rather obvious, distinction.

"in all likelihood, he took the most direct route to the apron disposal location"

You see? Likely as opposed to definite.

You said - "There is evidence".
"Likely" is not evidence, and you know it.

Not to you perhaps, but an appreciable number of serious and well-respected authors and researchers consider it a perfectly "convincing" ..

Are we ever likely meet any of these, "...serious and well-respected authors and researchers"?

......scenario that PC Long, who failed to investigate the occupants of the Wentworth Model Dwellings

You may find out that the City police pursued enquiries in the dwellings.

...and who was dismissed a year later for being drunk on duty, may have missed it.

Why? - what has the following year got to do with this?
Is this another character attack?

At the very least, the idea receives no less mainstream support than the notion that the apron was absent when Long first passed the spot.

Support has nothing to do with it, you said there was evidence, then, all you can offer is a possibility, one of several - that is not evidence.
We.... do not know what route he took, or when he took it, so your objection to my initial point is found to be baseless.
You have no evidence of the route he took away from the crime scene.

Even if the apron wasn't there first time around, how does this argue against him taking the most direct route?

I didn't say it did, I have said we cannot assume he took that route.

Who's to say that if he did have his own home and lived there alone, he wouldn't have dispatched and disposed of his victims there, like Nielsen, Gacy, and Dahmer did.

How would he get them there? in a coach, or on his Barra'

No evidence at all that the police turned lodging houses "inside out"...

Well, not only did they turn dwellings inside out we have complaints about police procedures on this issue. One woman told the press that they opened up her kitchen cupboard to check inside that too.

I'm not saying that the killer "had" to be local, but it's the safest and most likely explanation given the evidence and what we know, or ought to have informed ourselves, about known serial killers.

Right, so we do agree then (after all this), the killer did not have to be a local man. How likely, or unlikely, is irrelevant, seeing as we have no clue who he was.

[Wickerman]

Early suspect, James Mumford, advised that if they wanted to find the killer they should "look to the lodging houses." He may have been right.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

So, what do we do now?

[Tom_Wescott]

The police regularly searched the lodging houses which must make it less likely (although of course not impossible) that the culprit lived in one.

No they didn't.

Is Mumford an authority on that subject?

More so than you, less so than me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If the kidney sent to Mr lusk was genuine then would our killer have been able to stash it in a common lodging house before he posted it?.

No. And I don't know how legit the kidney was, but it was sent by two guys who did not live in lodging houses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

"Likely" is not evidence, and you know it.

"Likely" is based on the evidence, which I've provided many times. Of course we can't "know" for certain which route he took, but we can make logical inferences based on the location of the GSG in relation to Mitre Square.

Are we ever likely meet any of these, "...serious and well-respected authors and researchers"?

You probably could, quite easily, if you went up to them and said hello. Or, wait, are you seriously suggesting that there are NO serious and well-respected authors and researchers who believe Long missed the apron when he first passed the spot?

You may find out that the City police pursued enquiries in the dwellings.

But Long didn't.

Is this another character attack?

No, it's a simple statement of fact.

He was dismissed a year later for drunkenness on duty.

Shooting the messenger just isn't cricket, Jon.

We.... do not know what route he took, or when he took it, so your objection to my initial point is found to be baseless.
You have no evidence of the route he took away from the crime scene.

We have no proof, but as I've already observed, we can make logical inferences based on the evidence. We can also make silly ones in order to defend a particular non-local suspect theory. I tend to give the latter a bit of a swerve, though, me.

How would he get them there? in a coach, or on his Barra'

Or on foot.

Well, not only did they turn dwellings inside out we have complaints about police procedures on this issue

You need to be more specific than that.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the killer spent his nights a lodging house. Let's also assume he wasn't completely clumsy and stupid. Let's further assume that the police then checked out this doss house at some point as part of their search. What do you seriously expect them to have unearthed in terms of incriminating evidence?

"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Yes, that was the Star's own opinion.

But you hate the Star, remember, and you chastise me on numerous occasions for quoting from them.

And now this...

[Tom_Wescott]

Ben vs Wick Round 4,3837

I have to go with Wick on this one, Ben. I'm aware of a number of serious and well-respected writers who think it possible that Long missed the apron the first time around, but I'm hard pressed to think of one who is "convinced" by this, since there's absolutely zero evidence with which to "convince" anyone of such a conclusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps "convinced" is a little strong, you're right, but there seems to be a fair few who consider it the more probable explanation that Long missed it. I hold no firm convictions either way. I just couldn't fathom why Jon felt that an absent apron on first passing by Long meant the killer must have taken an indirect route home.

All the best,
Ben

[pinkmoon]

No. And I don't know how legit the kidney was, but it was sent by two guys who did not live in lodging houses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Two guys? Interesting more info please .

[Tom_Wescott]

Two guys? Interesting more info please .

My book on the full Ripper case will be out in a couple years and this'll be in it along with tons of other stuff. However, in the next couple of months I'll have a smaller book out on the Smith and Tabram cases.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Tom
You don't think the police regularly checked the local Lodging Houses after each murder?

So you are not with Wick when he quoted this...

"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

Of course the Star were basing their view on the very many reports that preceded that, in many papers, which mentioned the police's targeting of Lodging Houses.
Or are you saying this wasn't the case?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps "convinced" is a little strong, you're right, but there seems to be a fair few who consider it the more probable explanation that Long missed it. I hold no firm convictions either way. I just couldn't fathom why Jon felt that an absent apron on first passing by Long meant the killer must have taken an indirect route home.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
Wether long missed it the first time or it wasn't their is of course a minor point, but I would go with it wasn't there.

Hutch was not anticipating being seen and interrupted by so many Jews that night so of course he did not have any chalk on him, to write the GSG. I would say the relative lengthy time for the apron and GSG to appear was due to him going to find something to write with, perhaps get cleaned up a bit and drop off his goodies, before heading to Goulston street.

Of course he repeated this incrimination of Jews with his description of Aman later on.

[caz]

Something about Whitechapel

Harold Shipman was an Angel Of Mercy. Different pathology, different criteria.

Hi Errata,

Since we don't know anything about the ripper, and what gave him the need or desire to play God and take human lives, I'm not sure you can say that Harold Shipman was different, or how he was different.

Ted Bundy's victims all bore a superficial resemblance to a woman who rejected him. While the rejection did not make him a killer, it certainly makes sense that after this breakup his violent fantasies began to star her.

Again here, you may be getting it the wrong way round. Bundy's violent fantasies most likely began before he was even old enough to date anyone, so when he did, the physical type he happened to be attracted to sexually would also be the type he had the fantasies about, which could have made relationships difficult and been the underlying cause of this woman's rejection. In short, she could have subconsciously seen the light before his fantasies became too blurred with reality. I suspect the woman herself, and his rejection of Bundy, had very little to do with it, and he would have acted out his fantasies on women of the same type if he'd never met her.

I don't know about Colin Ireland, But I do know that Jeff Dahmer's original fantasies centered around a man who jogged through the neighborhood every day. In fact that man was his first attempted victim. Dahmer did not understand homosexuality at that point, ans the fantasy actually scared him. Not for the violence or the intention, but because he didn't understand why it centered around a man. His initial fantasy was in essence the fantasy he tries to live out when he started killing.

Again, how do you know Dahmer was instinctively attracted to this jogging man as a specific individual, rather than a type? From what you say, even Dahmer himself didn't understand the attraction! The time was apparently just right for him to start acting out his fantasies, and this intended victim happened to tick all the right boxes, without Dahmer quite understanding why, although jogging past every day evidently made him a tempting prospect. I doubt Colin Ireland was prompted into commuting from the Essex coast to a gay pub in west London to pick up all his victims because some individual nearer home had caused him grief and just happened to be gay.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the Ripper's fantasy centered around someone common in his life.

It's not unreasonable to wonder if this could have been the case, but yes, I do think it's unreasonable to assume it was.

Because he chose to kill prostitutes, and did not target any other women who were technically as vulnerable, we can assume that it was important to him that the women he killed were prostitutes.

Only important to him in as much as street prostitutes were more vulnerable then, because their very business demanded they go off with men into just the sort of locations where the Whitechapel victims were found. They were like lambs to the slaughter by comparison with the few other women who ventured out late at night on their own, who would have avoided the darkest alleys where possible, and would not have invited conversations with men they didn't know well.

It is a fair assumption that he stalked the neighborhood for awhile, familiarizing himself with the faces.

It is fair to speculate that he did so, but it is equally fair to speculate that he was a habitual user of the neighbourhood prostitutes and had familiarised himself that way, whether he was based there during the murders, had ever been based there, or came in from a less prostitute-rich neighbourhood nearby.

It might explain why he killed some women who were not actually soliciting.

Now that is an assumption too far - we don't know which ones he definitely killed, nor can we assume any of those were not up for earning a few pence when they met him. If he killed anyone who was not willing to go with him (a possibility with Stride), I acknowledge that he may have targeted her on the assumption that she was a prostitute. It's even possible that she didn't quite fit the bill as a lamb to the slaughter, causing him to leave her dead but not ripped, and go in search of the right stuff.

He knew their faces from his research.

Look, there is no evidence that even the victims themselves knew each other's faces, so we cannot say if the ripper had seen any of them before the moment he engaged with them as likely prey.

If he was trying to match a fantasy in his head, something all fetish killers do, then we can assume that the woman of his fantasy was a prostitute.

Now while that is quite possible, it certainly wouldn't point more to a local killer than a non-local one. On the contrary, if his fantasy was that specific, why not go the whole hog and assume that it was the lowest class Spitalfields variety he was after (which was what he got) and simply went where they could be found.

Whether it was someone he knew well, or just a woman he walked past every day, there is no way to know. But the environment in the fantasy is also important. For Bundy it was the woods. Dahmer had to be in his own place. Kemper needed cars. The Ripper likely needed Whitechapel. And if he was tying to stay as close to the fantasy as possible, that would mean his "muse" and his interaction with her was in Whitechapel.

Now you're talking. So you are saying basically what I have been saying - that it wasn't so much chance that brought him to a place where he could best fulfil his horribly specific fantasies - it was something within him that attracted him there (whether it was just for his murderous activities or for living and working too): a combination of the environment and the type of victim who floated his evil boat.

Which doesn't mean he was a local boy, he could have simply passed through every day. But he knew the area enough to need it for his fantasy.

Agreed. I have not argued otherwise.

A man may become a teacher to have access to children, but typically thats not where he kills them. The school is for the access. The scene is for the fantasy. Bundy picked up women all over the place. Killed them all over the place. But dumped them in the woods. That was for the fantasy. The Ripper killed and dumped in Whitechapel. The fantasy has to center around that, or he would have killed elsewhere. Whitechapel was not the only neighborhood of whores.

Again, agreed. He was attracted to Whitechapel as a murder location. He may have lived there anyway, like many thousands of other men, but he didn't just decide one day that because the prostitutes he saw around him would be so easy to murder, it would be a jolly wheeze to do so.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Ben,

But that's exactly what I meant by 'coincidental'. I don't think the ripper picked his victim type 'at random' at all. He picked on a specific type that would best allow him to fulfil his horribly violent fantasies - namely the Spitalfields unfortunate. So I'm not sure what you are arguing here. He was either in Whitechapel by accident or design when he began acting out his mutilation fantasies on his non-random victim type. Are you saying he most likely decided on his victim type according to where he happened to be living at the time? He still needed a victim supply, wherever he was based. What if he had been living in leafy Blackheath (or Romford ) and not Whitechapel as you believe? What would his victim type have been then, if he had only been able or willing to kill close to home? Would he not have offended at all, or would he still have gone for the easiest prey he could find there, putting up with fewer potential victims and even fewer opportunities?

To be continued...

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

That's a thoroughly bloody good suggestion re the chalk! I'd never thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. I've always queried the likelihood of the killer having chalk conveniently secreted about his person, but if there was somewhere nearby from which to obtain a stick - such as the nearby Victoria Home lodging house where indoor games would have been played - I can easily envisage him making the minor excursion, thus accounting for the absence of the apron on Long's first visit.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

He picked on a specific type that would best allow him to fulfil his horribly violent fantasies - namely the Spitalfields unfortunate. So I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

I'm arguing that the majority of serial killers will base their choice of victim on the people they have contact with, and exposure to, in a non-criminal capacity. It would therefore by no accident or "coincidence" if a slum-dwelling Spitalfields man with violent fantasies choice to incorporate prostitutes into them. And what group more likely to interact (in whatever capacity) with prostitutes than the men who live amongst them?

The tightly clustered nature of the murder/disposal locations tells us that the Whitechapel murderer was, in all overwhelming probability, a marauder type of killer - someone whose movements were restricted by a lack access to transport. Using David Canter's definitions, this would mean an individual living somewhere within the circle transcribed by the outermost crime scenes. If the ripper did not conform to this model, he would be "very rare" according to statistical evidence, and it isn't hard to see why.

Serial killers who travel considerable distances in search of victims obviously have access to transport, and one of the advantages of this is that it enables them to seek these victims in different locations. This, in turn, prevents any one area from attracting all the attention, panic, and police/vigilantee activity that would inevitably result if the killer was unimaginative enough and stupid enough to make use of his transport only to commute again and again into the same tiny locality. Moreover, since there is no evidence of this happening at any point in all history (to my knowledge at least), this scenario fails to get my vote for that reason too.* Conversely, there is compelling historical precedent for serial offenders living in the areas where they killed, especially in cases where the murder/disposal locations are all within close walking distance of each other.

As I've already observed, prostitution ran rife throughout London. Some people seem have convinced themselves that Spitalfields was the mecca for all prostitutes in London, and that if a depraved killer was interested only in the very skankiest of the skanky to have his grisly way with, they could be found in Spitalfields and nowhere else, thus compelling him to take the ludicrously unnecessary risk of "commuting" into the same tiny region kill after messy kill.

But this is quite the mistaken impression.

Were there appreciably fewer prostitutes in Lambeth or Stepney, for instance, and were they any less skanky? I rather think not.

All the best,
Ben

*Colin Ireland is a commuter in the sense that that he picked up his victims from the same location, but this differs significantly from the suggested "commuter Jack" premise insofar as his actions didn't draw instant and unambigious attention to West Brompton as the centre of operations for a serial killer on the prowl in the way that killing, mutilating, and leaving his victims on the streets unquestionably would.