Was JTR a local?

[pinkmoon]

As GUT says there are any number of reasons, such as visiting family, and therefore having familiarity with the area, possibly business, though unlikely.

Regards

Or possibly the best place to find a women who would willingly go of with you to some dark corner without making any fuss.

[Garry Wroe]

Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols - Friday 31 August 1888
Annie Chapman - Saturday 8 September 1888
Elizabeth Stride - Sunday 30th September 1888
Catherine ‘Kate’ Eddowes - Sunday 30th September 1888
Mary Jane Kelly - Friday 9th November 1888

I'm with the police who suspected someone from out of town, not local.

Anderson certainly believed that the killer was a local. Investigators also initiated a dragnet operation centred on Flower and Dean Street.

He was free to travel at weekends to his killing ground. I don't buy the local who couldn't carry out the murders because of work commitments. There would possibly have been more murders and on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday had he been local.

The working week for most during the period under scrutiny, Spider, encompassed from Monday through to Saturday. This being the case, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was each killed during the normal working week. To my mind we should be looking towards someone who was in casual rather than rigid employment at the time.

[gnote]

I'd be looking specifically at reasons that have some sort of precedent in terms of known serial killer behaviour, i.e. in the way that continued commuting into the same very small area (and despite the rapidly intensifying police presence and focus after each murder) tends not to have, for obvious reasons.

Agreed. Most serial killers have a preferred "hunting" ground and that's more often than not going to be in the general vicinity of where they live. Familiarity is comfortability. It's not an absolute guarantee the killer was local, but i think it a bare minimum he was very familiar with the area. He didn't just kill, but spent time mutilating victims and then escaped multiple times.

One scenario is an outsider sees Whitchapel as "fertile" ground. He comes in to town on business, to visit someone, or whatever reason one wants to apply. During the early hours he uses a kind of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" approach, butchers a woman, walks through unfamiliar areas with blood on his hands and returns to his hotel/ship/relative's place. Nobody is the wiser and he decided to repeat his adventures again. It takes a minimum of 5 murders before escalated police and public vigilance deters him.

Scenario two is the Ripper being not from the area but knows it well because he's lived and/or worked there previously. Much more likely than the previous one but still is questionable. Jack is close enough to east London to have a reason to make regular visits. He therefore must be somebody who can control his compulsions and only go into action when he's away. Lust killers can, but rarely operate in this manner. This is a serious or murders that occurred over a span of months, not years so it appears the compulsion and planning aspects are at odds. Also, he still needs to get back to whatever home base is for him at the time.

Scenario three is the Ripper is from the area. Knows the people, the area and possibly the basic routes police patrols take. Because he's local he does not stand out. Nothing about his look or behavior draws any attention. He simply blends. If he lives in the immediate area he can perform the crimes and walk home to safety.

Almost nothing is absolute in this case which is why we mainly have to concentrate on probabilities rather than possibilities. The three scenarios i've provided above obviously are not comprehensive but i believe give good argument to the Ripper being local.

[caz]

I'd be looking specifically at reasons that have some sort of precedent in terms of known serial killer behaviour, i.e. in the way that continued commuting into the same very small area (and despite the rapidly intensifying police presence and focus after each murder) tends not to have, for obvious reasons.

Hi Ben,

But wouldn't a locally based killer have had a sight more to fear, from what you very reasonably describe as 'the rapidly intensifying police presence and focus after each murder', than one who could have been back on a main road and out of the area on his toes before the police were even aware that he had done it again? If the police focus back in those days was mainly on local men, your argument would seem to work against you more than for you.

Maybe - just maybe - it was a bucking of your 'known serial killer behaviour' trend that allowed the ripper to remain unsuspected and uncaught, all the while he was in a position to keep up his murderous activities. After all, this 'known' behaviour presumably refers to those offenders who slipped up somewhere along the line and got themselves caught.

How many unsolved cases are there compared with solved ones? And why would we expect behavioural traits to be common to both groups? Couldn't it be that behaving differently from most of the unsuccessful ones goes some way to explain the ripper's apparent success?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

The working week for most during the period under scrutiny, Spider, encompassed from Monday through to Saturday. This being the case, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was each killed during the normal working week. To my mind we should be looking towards someone who was in casual rather than rigid employment at the time.

Or seasonal worker, or unemployed, or self-employed.

Mike

[Spider]

Anderson certainly believed that the killer was a local. Investigators also initiated a dragnet operation centred on Flower and Dean Street.


The working week for most during the period under scrutiny, Spider, encompassed from Monday through to Saturday. This being the case, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was each killed during the normal working week. To my mind we should be looking towards someone who was in casual rather than rigid employment at the time.

And for weekends during a 3 week and 5 week gap in the murders? I don't think the working classes at that time were likely to have been away on holiday. I'm pretty sure there would have been more murders on his turf if he were a local.

Regards

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben,

But wouldn't a locally based killer have had a sight more to fear, from what you very reasonably describe as 'the rapidly intensifying police presence and focus after each murder', than one who could have been back on a main road and out of the area on his toes before the police were even aware that he had done it again? If the police focus back in those days was mainly on local men, your argument would seem to work against you more than for you.

Maybe - just maybe - it was a bucking of your 'known serial killer behaviour' trend that allowed the ripper to remain unsuspected and uncaught, all the while he was in a position to keep up his murderous activities. After all, this 'known' behaviour presumably refers to those offenders who slipped up somewhere along the line and got themselves caught.

How many unsolved cases are there compared with solved ones? And why would we expect behavioural traits to be common to both groups? Couldn't it be that behaving differently from most of the unsuccessful ones goes some way to explain the ripper's apparent success?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
But why would someone who had the werewithall to commute into Whitechapel continue to do so if they could just have easily gone to a different area of London once the WC area got too hot?

A local man would really have no choice, especially since hes on foot.

Also, seems to me it would be easier for a local man to evade capture since he not only knew the back ways well but could get to his bolt hole quicker.

Plus the GSG seems to indicate against someone non-local who did not go "back on a main road" as quickly as they could and especially if you consider the time gap involved when it was found.

[Spider]

Hi Caz
But why would someone who had the werewithall to commute into Whitechapel continue to do so if they could just have easily gone to a different area of London once the WC area got too hot?

A local man would really have no choice, especially since hes on foot.

Also, seems to me it would be easier for a local man to evade capture since he not only knew the back ways well but could get to his bolt hole quicker.

Plus the GSG seems to indicate against someone non-local who did not go "back on a main road" as quickly as they could and especially if you consider the time gap involved when it was found.

Because a person lives outside an area doesn't exclude them from knowing the area like the back of their hand. JTR may have visited for legitimate purposes far more regularly and for a long period before he killed there. He may have had lodgings between Mitre Square and Middlesex St, close to Goulston St.
Most of Whitechapel is laid out in a pretty regular layout, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take long to familiarise yourself with the area.
Whitechapel was obviously well within his comfort zone which to me says familiarity. I think that on foot was de riguer for most back then, and the best and least conspicuous way to travel.

Regards

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I would be rather surprised if it ultimately transpired that the ripper was any great statistical anomaly or "trend-bucker". The fact that there was no such thing as known serial killer behaviour in 1888, coupled with the absence of finger-printing and DNA analysis would have worked immeasurably in his favour, ensuring that even if he did "slip up" or engage in overly ABC serial killer habits of the type that modern criminology might predict and trap, he was more likely than not to get away with it.

Another point worth remembering is that the "unsuccessful" named and shamed offenders were only caught as a result of modern investigative techniques (i.e. finger prints and DNA), or because of an uncharacteristically careless mistake on the offender - precisely the type of mistake that we know Jack made on occasions but managed to get away with thanks to his own good luck. If Albert Cadosch had ventured a peak over that fence and sounded the alarm, for instance, things might have turned out differently. Modern day killers are rarely caught as a result their behaviour being too predictable.

But wouldn't a locally based killer have had a sight more to fear, from what you very reasonably describe as 'the rapidly intensifying police presence and focus after each murder', than one who could have been back on a main road and out of the area on his toes before the police were even aware that he had done it again?

Ah, but how long would he want to be "on his toes" for in the open streets with police whistles blowing, vigilante committee blokes all over the place, and with innards in pockets? Not long I'd suggest. Better, surely, to do as the large majority of "marauder" serialists do, and get off the streets as quickly as possible. Living in the heart of the murder district was hardly a "con" for the murderer, especially given the proliferation of dodgy doss houses which were largely vacant during the day, and thus not likely to be of much use to a house-to-house hunter.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

Hi Caz
But why would someone who had the werewithall to commute into Whitechapel continue to do so if they could just have easily gone to a different area of London once the WC area got too hot?

A local man would really have no choice, especially since hes on foot.

Also, seems to me it would be easier for a local man to evade capture since he not only knew the back ways well but could get to his bolt hole quicker.

Plus the GSG seems to indicate against someone non-local who did not go "back on a main road" as quickly as they could and especially if you consider the time gap involved when it was found.

Maybe he enjoyed the challenge of it being "hot".

Maybe he had a compulsion to kill in that area, mental health can give some rather strange compulsions.

Maybe his target was in that area.

Maybe that's where he saw his ex having it off with some bloke.

Shall I go on with possible reasons.

[pinkmoon]

Might have been the best place to buy a cheap shawl.

[gnote]

Another point worth remembering is that the "unsuccessful" named and shamed offenders were only caught as a result of modern investigative techniques (i.e. finger prints and DNA), or because of an uncharacteristically careless mistake on the offender - precisely the type of mistake that we know Jack made on occasions but managed to get away with thanks to his own good luck. If Albert Cadosch had ventured a peak over that fence and sounded the alarm, for instance, things might have turned out differently. Modern day killers are rarely caught as a result their behaviour being too predictable.

Exactly. Look at The Green River Killer. If it weren't for DNA he'd probably still be free and he killed about 50 more people than the Ripper. (yes i'm aware these numbers are not concrete) Gary Ridgway in fact had a below average IQ but was simply good at what he did. Maybe the Ripper did have some special qualities that set him apart from other serial killers. Nothing wrong with speculating about it, but i see no reason to think it's more likely than not.

[GUT]

Exactly. Look at The Green River Killer. If it weren't for DNA he'd probably still be free and he killed about 50 more people than the Ripper. (yes i'm aware these numbers are not concrete) Gary Ridgway in fact had a below average IQ but was simply good at what he did. Maybe the Ripper did have some special qualities that set him apart from other serial killers. Nothing wrong with speculating about it, but i see no reason to think it's more likely than not.

That is a very good point speculation is one thing, but claiming one speculation is better than another, when the actual Evidence supports one's speculation just as well as the other's is pointless.

[Wickerman]

I would tend to think that the proverbial "Serial Killer" behaviour, is something that has evolved over time. That is to say the first, or earliest repeat offenders did not act like today's Serial Killers. Certainly, there will be a few common traits, but perhaps not sufficient to make a study using today's metrics.

[GregBaron]

Local Yokel...

Well, if the Ripper was Bury or Druitt, he in fact came from some distance off..

We’ve discussed in the past whether it likely a West End Tosh came slumming into the East End…

The general consensus was in the negative..

After a few murders, the street walkers were looking for a bogeyman so anyone out of place would seemingly get the blow-off…

As Abby indicated, the apron doesn’t promote the idea of an absconding ripper…

Predators generally work best in familiar territory, this guy was a non-descript in East London just as Bundy was a typical coed on college campuses…


Greg