our killer been local

[Wickerman]

But Long didn't.

Correct and making enquiries at every door will take time, and PC Long is not a detective. He did what he was supposed to do, alert his superiors.

Shooting the messenger just isn't cricket, Jon.

No it isn't, but then there are some messengers who raise unrelated topics in an attempt to assassinate the character of a PC.

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.

I have chastised anyone who misrepresents what is written.

Look Ben, what I quote from the Star is opinion. Whether it was the reporters opinion, or whether it reflects public opinion I do not know.
What I do not do is try to misrepresent an opinion published in the press as if it is a fact, or that it is the result of inside information. The press were after all quite often wrong.
This was just an opinion.

I dare say the comment made by Mumford, that the killer might be found in a lodging-house, is to be expected given that he said this early on before any real series of murders had taken place.
We might all make some comment that the police should look for a killer in those dens of iniquity that proliferate Whitechapel. It appears you still hold on to this line of thinking.

What this opinion does not take into account is, that it was not just the police against the Ripper, the whole citizenry were on the lookout for him too.
No serial killer is going to try hide among a thousand eyes all watching each other and every move you make.
People were turning in their friends, neighbours, strangers on the street, in fact anyone who looked strange, acted strange, or maybe someone they just didn't like.
There's no privacy in a lodging-house, sooner or later someone will notice the times you come in, or a blood stain, or that package you keep hidden, or maybe even your nonchalant attitude to those miserable wretches found all carved up.
Those miserable wretches were their friends, those dossers, in their hundreds, were also on the lookout for that 'bastard' with a knife.
Trying to hide among people who are watching your every move would be fatal, sooner or later you will slip up.

Much safer, more practical, to have a room to yourself somewhere where you can rest in peace, not with one eye open.

[Wickerman]

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

What I am saying Ben, is that the location of that apron, when found at 2:55, is no confirmation of the route taken by the killer.
Any reason we choose to entertain as to why it was not found until 2:55 is pure conjecture.
Although PC Long was never questioned about it, he must have passed that same address about 1:50-55, so either the killer had not reached that spot by then or, PC Long missed it twice!

Given the distance from Mitre Sq. to Goulston St., the killer can't have taken ten minutes, probably five or even less - it is difficult to see him idling his way through the streets, he must have been in haste or at least anxious to get away assuming he took that particular route.

Watkins finds the body at 1:44, and the killer has already left the square, so he could have reached Goulston St. before PC Long passed 119 Goulston St.
So, are we to consider that the killer did indeed take a different route, or did PC Long miss this piece of apron at 1:55 as well as at 2:20?

The former is more likely than the latter, wouldn't you say?

[Ben]

Correct and making enquiries at every door will take time, and PC Long is not a detective. He did what he was supposed to do, alert his superiors.

I'm afraid I call nonsense on that one, Jon.

Time was clearly of the essence in apprehending a murderer who was both on the run and clearly still in the vicinity of his recent crime. It would have been extreme folly to waste precious time waiting for "his superiors" to arrive on the scene, hold his hand, and give him the go ahead to do the bleedin' obvious.

No it isn't, but then there are some messengers who raise unrelated topics in an attempt to assassinate the character of a PC.

Let's not poo our pants with overly dramatic expressions of indignation here. I'm highlighting a pertinent fact that may well impact on the overall credibility of the witness in question.

What I do not do is try to misrepresent an opinion published in the press as if it is a fact, or that it is the result of inside information. The press were after all quite often wrong. This was just an opinion.

Exactly. Just an opinion. The Star's opinion. Not to be invested with any more worth that it warrants. That's not to say we shouldn't pay attention when they report on matters that obviously originated from police sources, but when they're offering their own, non-police-endorsed thoughts, I'm less inclined to pay heed.

No serial killer is going to try hide among a thousand eyes all watching each other and every move you make. People were turning in their friends, neighbours, strangers on the street, in fact anyone who looked strange, acted strange, or maybe someone they just didn't like.

This is where just a bit more insight into the habits and behaviour of known serial offenders would be advantageous to you, I strongly feel. The necessity for, and ability of, serial killers to blend into a crowd and become the proverbial "needles in a haystack" is axiomatic. In "normal life", most serial killers will not look or act "strange". This is why they evade detection for so long despite being "under the noses", so to speak, of law enforcement. The larger lodging houses could accommodate 500 lodgers per night, and if the ripper was one of them, how obscenely and implausibly unlucky would he have to be if one particular dickhead on the floor above had nothing better to do than single him out for random and irrational scrutiny? Exactly. It's nonsense, and it didn't happen. Moreover, the vast majority of lodgers were far too concerned with their own daily toil and the struggle for survival to be playing Poirot in the small hours.

There's no privacy in a lodging-house, sooner or later someone will notice the times you come in, or a blood stain, or that package you keep hidden, or maybe even your nonchalant attitude to those miserable wretches found all carved up.

Actually, depending on the lodging house, one could acquire a "private" cubicle for a couple of pence extra. As for "blood stains" and supposedly "nonchalant" attitudes towards the murdered victims, this is assuming a great deal on the basis of very little. I'd be quite surprised, personally, if the real killer was prone so such careless and self-incriminating lapses of judgement.

Those miserable wretches were their friends, those dossers, in their hundreds, were also on the lookout for that 'bastard' with a knife.

I have no idea what that's supposed to be based on, but it seems both black-and-white and sentimental to me. I honestly think - and no offense intended - that you have one or two severely tainted perceptions when it comes to matters ripper. You lump the victims and all working class dossers into the category of honest-to-goodness, might-have-picked-a-pocket-or-two strugglers, whereas you envisage the ripper as a well-dressed, possibly upper class outsider who slashed his way in and out of Poorsville with a twirl of his moustache. It's an approach to "ripperology" than belongs on the 60s and 70s, if you ask me, and it may explain why we clash a lot. But my sincere apologies if I've misread you.

Much safer, more practical, to have a room to yourself somewhere where you can rest in peace, not with one eye open.

Quite frankly, good luck finding many of those in that part of the East End at that time.

Incidentally, this thread was supposed to addressing the question of whether or not the killer was local, not whether or not he was a doss-house dweller. There are plenty of other threads which tackle the latter debate in great depth.

So, are we to consider that the killer did indeed take a different route, or did PC Long miss this piece of apron at 1:55 as well as at 2:20?

The former is more likely than the latter, wouldn't you say?

Where are you getting "different route" from?

It doesn't matter whether or not you accept that the apron was there when Long first passed the spot, the logical reality is that be headed in the direction of home, or at the very least, a bolt-hole, after the murder. Of those who support the contention that Long correctly observed that it wasn't there first time, there seems to be an agreement that he made use of a building - possibly a lodging house - before venturing out again to deposit the apron. The only explanation that seems universally accepted as weak is the one that has the killer skulking around the open streets for far longer than was necessary, and for no obvious reason.

[Tom_Wescott]

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?

Did they bust in and search every man? No, they didn't. Did they speak with the lodging house keeper and his deputy? Yes, of course they did. Were the same police on the payroll of said keeper? Yes.

As for Hutch, I would not be so quick to assume he was a regular lodger in these houses most of the time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

The problem for the killer was not in getting to the scene of the crime ,but in getting from it.In at least four of the murders there would be the need to pass along narrow streets in a part bloodstained condition.Streets that were patrolled by police officers that would take an interest in any person about in the early hours.The more streets to cover the greater the risk.A local would have fewer streets to contend with.

[caz]

The exposure and proximity to the intended victim type will always come first.

How do you mean, Ben? Before he even experiences his first murder fantasies? Are you seriously saying that Harold Shipman became a doctor first, and only when he found himself surrounded by vulnerable elderly patients did he start having fantasies about putting them to sleep, one after another? Surely it's more like that saucy chap on the Fast Show: "a girls' dormitory at one in the morning? With my reputation? Bingo!"

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.

I don't know how anyone could possibly know this, without the killer himself saying when he first imagined what it would be like to murder and mutilate a prostitute, instead of using her for sex. From an early age I suspect (ie before he was old enough to engage with them at all), but neither of us knows for sure.

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.

Again, you know this how? Did Peter Sutcliffe say so, and you took his word for it? Did he say he would never have dreamed of harming a woman before being exposed to scores of prostitutes (and all the other minxes in short skirts), who were just begging to be attacked? I really don't think it can work like that. Surely the violent fantasies came first, and drove Sutcliffe time and time again into the various red light districts looking for easy 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.

The ripper didn't really do any 'disposing' unless you include the torso cases, and while Colin Ireland didn't kill his victims in one small area, he did take the risk of picking them all up (or was picked up by them) from the same pub, after commuting to Fulham from the Essex coast for the purpose. He was a commuter serialist who never went anywhere else to look for victims. The pub became his comfort zone, a tried and tested place where he felt safe to chat up the easy prey.

You seem to assume that all killers without one foot nailed to the floor are able and willing to change one comfort zone for another at the drop of a hat, but it doesn't always follow. Your argument that a non-local ripper would have moved his operations elsewhere rather than risk the same streets each time ignores the fact that your local ripper did risk the same streets each time, when nobody was forcing him out there with his knife. How was that any more 'prudent' than an outsider doing exactly the same thing, but nipping off between murders to somewhere nobody was ever going to look for him? If you are saying your local man had no choice but to stay in the area and keep on killing there, regardless of the growing risks, that suggests an OCD-like condition. So why could not a non-local man have had a similar condition, which kept him coming back to Whitechapel?

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?

Safer? I'd say the ripper himself would have been safer (from all those potential witnesses for a start) if he wasn't in the immediate vicinity at all between murders, and didn't return there after the last one. He was never caught, so that could suggest he was a shade brighter than the majority of identified examples who operated, clone-like, within their own environment.

But of course I have never argued that he wasn't a local man, or even that it was unlikely. I tend to wade in when I see people arguing strongly that he was - without a shred of evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Great posts, Tom and Harry. Agreed entirely.

[Scott Nelson]

the very skankiest of the skanky...

I'm in a box of fruit loops

[Ben]

How do you mean, Ben? Before he even experiences his first murder fantasies?

I mean, at the very least, before he decided that the group of people with whom he had the most non-violent interaction, would be ideal targets to act out those "murder fantasies" on, Caz. Shipman may well have developed a murderous God complex before he became a doctor, yes, but his specific methods and fantasies may have developed once he came into contact with vulnerable elderly patients. There has to be an impetus behind the choice of victim and the decision to pursue them in particular for sadistic pleasure. Shipman was unlikely to have woken up one morning aged 12 and decided, on a whim, to put some octogenarians to permanent rest, and then made life and career choices accordingly. Just as there is a proven correlation between a troubled childhood and serial crime in adulthood, an eventual serial killer will have been affected by his environment. It's cause and effect.

I don't know how anyone could possibly know this, without the killer himself saying when he first imagined what it would be like to murder and mutilate a prostitute, instead of using her for sex.

But what's the realistic alternative? If we accept your suggestion that the killer harboured violent fantasies that specifically involved prostitutes before he was even at age where he could feasibly start using them for sex, he'd have attempted an attack when he first found himself alone with one, surely? And yet we don't see any such pattern with known prostitute killers, such as Stephen Wright, who by all accounts had non-murderous experiences with prostitutes for years before he starting killing any.

The ripper didn't really do any 'disposing' unless you include the torso cases, and while Colin Ireland didn't kill his victims in one small area, he did take the risk of picking them all up

Which, as I explained in my last post, doesn't compare in the slightest with what you're suggesting for Commmuter Jack, i.e. not just picking them up from a specific location and disposing them elsewhere (thus severely delaying and obscuring the recognition that all victims were picked up from the same location), but commuting again and again into the same pick-up location to kill and dump victims there and then. If it can be shown that any other serial killer in history did anything remotely like this (and perhaps try to explain the contrast with the great many proven examples of local "marauder" type killers who didn't), I'd be more inclined consider it as anything more than an extremely remote possibility.

If you are saying your local man had no choice but to stay in the area and keep on killing there, regardless of the growing risks, that suggests an OCD-like condition.

No, it doesn't.

It suggests that he only operated in his immediate locality because he lacked the private transport (or funds for public transport) that would have enabled him to seek out ripping pastures anew and alternative comfort zones. Harry also raised the excellent point that seeking out suitable victims was only half the problem. He also had to disappear from those streets very quickly, and in the full and clear realisation that it would only be minutes before the body is discovered and whistles start a' blowin. Not the cleverest moment to start hoofing it through unfamiliar streets all the way back to East Finchley! Lack of familiarity with other districts, plus a lack of transport to get him there in the first place, plus an urgent need to disappear from the streets and make good his escape offer us excellent reasons for a local offender to stick within the confines of his locale. A "commuter" with the means to commute and explore other comfort zones, on the other hand, would be quite the plonker to target such a tiny region time after time. And again, for that reason? OCD doesn't seem terribly convincing an explanation to me.

He was never caught, so that could suggest he was a shade brighter than the majority of identified examples who operated, clone-like, within their own environment.

It could suggest that, but it's very unlikely to, in my opinion. If there's a more obvious reason for Jack's escape is that the police were operating in an era that was extremely unenlightened on the subject of serial crime, when policing as an organized force was still in its infancy.

I tend to wade in when I see people arguing strongly that he was - without a shred of evidence.

That may be because you don't regard a century's worth of insight into serial killer behaviour - at least that which pertains to geography - as "evidence" in the way that I believe we should.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

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

Exactly!

[Lechmere]

Let me get this straight...
Are we being asked to entertain the idea that Hutchinson killed Eddowes at 1.45 am-ish, went back to the Victoria Home at 2.00 am-ish with the bloody apron, gained entry, picked up some chalk from the games room and went back out, dropped the apron, wrote the graffito and regained entry to the Victoria Home at 2.30 am-ish?

[Lechmere]

Tom
I don’t doubt that the police searches were far from fool proof.

But you seem to suggest that the humble lodging house deputies had the police in their pockets?
The beat coppers may have popped in and had a familiar relationship some deputies and a few may have been paid off by criminals who frequented certain lodging houses, so that they turned a blind eye to whatever went on inside.

However I would suggest that this would not have been much use in the face of targeted police attention towards the lodging houses – which is clearly what happened.

Also I have no doubt that the deputies and the criminals wanted the Ripper caught – partly because it was bad for business and partly because such people invariably get all moralistic and indignant about that type of crime.
Accordingly for the purposes of Ripper hunts I am sure they would have been cooperative – just as East Enders were in general to the surprise of the authorities.

Also I think a large degree of over exaggeration goes on with respect to the supposed anonymity of these establishments.
There was clearly an established residential population who knew each other’s business – we see that time and again in this case.
We also see a growing mistrust of strangers and of people acting out of the ordinary, with them regularly being informed on and arrested in lodging houses across London.

Of course we know nothing of Hutchinson's movements - so anything can be inserted as conjecture.
Even if he was Toppy - as he probably was - we know very little about that period.

[Graham]

Games room? In an East End lodging-house in 1888? A place where one bed would be used by 3 different people in a 24 hour period? A place where there were very likely no sanitary facilities? In which people sometimes slept, or tried to sleep, on rope strung from wall to wall? A games room? Like snooker and table-tennis, or a darts-board? A GAMES ROOM? Do you people actually live in the real world, or do you just, as I suspect, make it up as you go along?????

Graham

[Wickerman]

The problem for the killer was not in getting to the scene of the crime ,but in getting from it.In at least four of the murders there would be the need to pass along narrow streets in a part bloodstained condition.Streets that were patrolled by police officers that would take an interest in any person about in the early hours.The more streets to cover the greater the risk.A local would have fewer streets to contend with.

Harry.
Any one of us can choose to invent a 'bloodstained' killer, just to suit our argument but none of the doctors thought the killer would be unduly covered in blood.
So you seem to have offered a straw-man argument.

For arguments sake, lets assume he IS covered in blood. The dark streets and alleyways provide suitable cover, but when he arrives at a lodginghouse, and tries to get himself cleaned up at the sink, he is surrounded by nosy dossers, and he can't hide in the dark.

A lodging-house is the last place your bloodstained killer would walk into.

[Lechmere]

Graham
Do you doubt that there was a full sized Billiards Table in the Victoria Home reading room, with numerous sticks of chalk lined up neatly for the use of any passing night stalking slasher?