Lodging Houses Link

[c.d.]

To my mind it is because he couldn't and that's why I favour a local man.

Hmmm....."favour" not "favor." Guessing you are a U.K. boy there, Darryl. Funny how spelling stands out in so many posts.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Looking at the lodging house question I ask myself why were the victims so intertwined in were they lived . Why such a small area ? The best answer I personally feel is because Jack knew that area like the back of his hand , and he stuck to that neighbourhood because it was the one he knew best, [ maybe the only one ]. IE He lived in the district or as a lesser alternative worked there , most probably both.
He may have been a client of the poor victims thus putting them at ease , particularly in Mary's case, were he was possibly invited back to her room , as a regular punter. Again the doss houses being on Flower and Dean Street, Dorset Street, and George Street plus the Ten Bells pub, all within a few hundred yards of each other strongly suggests to me it was the district he felt most comfortable in.
If Jack is ever unmasked the one thing I am most confident with is that it will be someone who lived near or even on one of the said streets .

Regards Darryl

pretty much agree DK. imho only a local man, and or one accustomed to working in the area, like bury, coukd pull off the night of the double event. the ripper knew those streets like the back of his hand.

[Darryl Kenyon]

To my mind it is because he couldn't and that's why I favour a local man.

Hmmm....."favour" not "favor." Guessing you are a U.K. boy there, Darryl. Funny how spelling stands out in so many posts.

c.d.

I am CD , born and bred in a small Lancashire town called Ramsbottom [ about forty miles away from Peter Sutcliffe's main killing ground ]

https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/23550913.ramsbottom-business-owners-town-still-thriving/#gallery0

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM
Sutcliffe's first attack [ not murders ], what we know of was in Bradford and his second Keighley . At the time Sutcliffe was living in Bingley which is more or less smack in the middle of either town. He also worked from October 1976 in Bradford on an industrial estate as an HGV driver which gave him the opportunity to spy on Prostitutes and scout red light districts in Yorkshire. He also met his wife at a dance hall in the red light district of Bradford in 1967 [ thus showing early familiarity ], and in 1977 he moved to the outskirts of Bradford. Also apparently in his younger days he was a heavy user of prostitutes [ and a known voyeur ], in the Leeds and Bradford districts. His main killing ground. So i would suggest all the known killing/attack localities Sutcliffe was familiar with.

I get your points FM but I ask myself why just the one area with if Jack ? And a small area at that .Why didn't he move around to different districts of London waiting for opportunities ? Sutcliffe knew West Yorkshire well , so he moved from one red light area to another and even down to Manchester. plus his job from 1977 gave him access to scout said areas. To me it is like Jack did not have that luxury. He knew the one small district and that was it. His job, and or family life possibly stifling his ability to move around . Otherwise why go back into the very heart of his killing field to murder Mary [ for instance ], and the enormous risk that entailed. Why not kill in another area of London close by . To my mind it is because he couldn't and that's why I favour a local man.

Regards Darryl

These are all fair points, Darryl.

I would say, however, that many of Sutcliffe's earlier attacks weren't in red light districts and he was disturbed on occasion. And then of course, 6 of the 13 murder victims weren't sex workers and of those who were, not all of them were picked up in a red light district. It could reasonably be argued that Sutcliffe didn't choose red light districts specifically at all, they were merely one area of a few where attacks and murders took place; and it follows Sutcliffe merely drove around many places looking for opportunities.

I reckon the common denominator here is not a familiar location, but rather driving around in various places and looking for opportunities.

This would tie in with Jack's murder sites, with his walking around looking for opportunities being the equivalent of Sutcliffe driving around looking for opportunities.

In terms of how this relates to the OP, the experience of Sutcliffe suggests there wasn't much rhyme nor reason beyond simply looking around in various places for an opportunity, which may suggest that the lodging house link is not important at all.

[GBinOz]

In terms of how this relates to the OP, the experience of Sutcliffe suggests there wasn't much rhyme nor reason beyond simply looking around in various places for an opportunity, which may suggest that the lodging house link is not important at all.

Hi FM,

The profile was produced by applying mathematical principles to the locations of the murder sites. Having used these algorithms to determine the most likely area for Jack to be living, I would think that the additional fact that many of the victims also lived within that same area is of some significance. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

The profile was produced by applying mathematical principles to the locations of the murder sites. Having used these algorithms to determine the most likely area for Jack to be living, I would think that the additional fact that many of the victims also lived within that same area is of some significance. JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Signficance in what respect?

That it demonstrates a link to lodging houses?

If so, I think the theory needs more meat on the bones. The factual parts of your post are:

1) The location of the murder sites.
2) Many of the victims lived in that area.

How does 1 and 2 demonstrate that lodging houses are a significant clue?

I'm not saying lodging houses aren't important, and maybe the link has been found by someone, but as of yet nobody on this thread has demonstrated how and why lodging houses play a part in this case beyond the fact that the victims passed through a small number of lodging houses.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi FM,

The profile was produced by applying mathematical principles to the locations of the murder sites. Having used these algorithms to determine the most likely area for Jack to be living, I would think that the additional fact that many of the victims also lived within that same area is of some significance. JMO.

Cheers, George

I completely agree George.

The combination of those elements is what's important.

The victims all lived within close proximity of each other and the killer has a higher probability of living and/or working in the area due to the Math that can be applied.

There's also the fact that the killer eluded capture in every way imaginable.

The most impressive feature of the murders from the killer's perspective is that he appears to have escaped all of the murder sites with ease and without any witnesses having seen him leave despite a heavy police presence in the latter murders.

The fact he escaped the Eddowes murder site is astonishing when you consider the amount of eyes and ears that were on high alert at the time.

That is likely to suggest that the killer KNEW his surroundings and ALL possible escape routes. That required geographical knowledge and familiarity with his surroundings.

I have always wondered whether the killer escaped the murder sites by going UP?

When you look at photos of the murder locations at Millers Court, Mitre Square, Berner Street etc... there's always a drain pipe situated within yards of the body. And as humans, I have always said that SCIENCE proves that when a person is INITIALLY scanning for potential threats and danger, as human beings we scan around us panoramically and beneath our feet and rarely look up relative to looking around us for danger in the first instance. I.E The last place we INSTINCTIVELY look for threats as humans are UPWARDS.

If you walk into a room, the last place you will look is directly upwards. That is because as human beings we have never had ANY Ariel threats and so it is absolutely possible that the killer evaded capture by scaling the roofs of buildings because it's NOT the first place the police would have INSTINCTIVELY looked; because that's scientific human nature.

I believe the killer escaped the murder sites via an elevated position; because no person is EVER seen leaving ANY of the murder sites, DESPITE countless witnesses stating they saw each victim with their potential and likely killer PRIOR to the murders being committed.

It's almost as though the killer didn't care about being seen beforehand with the women he killed, because he knew that the only important thing was his ability to escape AFTER he had killed the women.

Thoughts?


RD

[Lewis C]

I completely agree George.

The combination of those elements is what's important.

The victims all lived within close proximity of each other and the killer has a higher probability of living and/or working in the area due to the Math that can be applied.

There's also the fact that the killer eluded capture in every way imaginable.

The most impressive feature of the murders from the killer's perspective is that he appears to have escaped all of the murder sites with ease and without any witnesses having seen him leave despite a heavy police presence in the latter murders.

The fact he escaped the Eddowes murder site is astonishing when you consider the amount of eyes and ears that were on high alert at the time.

That is likely to suggest that the killer KNEW his surroundings and ALL possible escape routes. That required geographical knowledge and familiarity with his surroundings.

I have always wondered whether the killer escaped the murder sites by going UP?

When you look at photos of the murder locations at Millers Court, Mitre Square, Berner Street etc... there's always a drain pipe situated within yards of the body. And as humans, I have always said that SCIENCE proves that when a person is INITIALLY scanning for potential threats and danger, as human beings we scan around us panoramically and beneath our feet and rarely look up relative to looking around us for danger in the first instance. I.E The last place we INSTINCTIVELY look for threats as humans are UPWARDS.

If you walk into a room, the last place you will look is directly upwards. That is because as human beings we have never had ANY Ariel threats and so it is absolutely possible that the killer evaded capture by scaling the roofs of buildings because it's NOT the first place the police would have INSTINCTIVELY looked; because that's scientific human nature.

I believe the killer escaped the murder sites via an elevated position; because no person is EVER seen leaving ANY of the murder sites, DESPITE countless witnesses stating they saw each victim with their potential and likely killer PRIOR to the murders being committed.

It's almost as though the killer didn't care about being seen beforehand with the women he killed, because he knew that the only important thing was his ability to escape AFTER he had killed the women.

Thoughts?


RD

Hi RD,

If he escaped the murder sites by going up, what is he likely to have done next? Promptly come back down from the roof, or stay on the roof for a long time? We do know that if he killed Stride, he couldn't have stayed on a roof for very long.

[GBinOz]

Here is an interesting interview from Lloyd's Weekly London, Feb 4, 1912. It is with retired Inspector Edmund Reid:

"I have been asked to tell the story of the "Ripper" series many times, but to do so would necessitate the devotion of weeks of labour to the matter.

But this I will say at once. I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone.

The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal "Jack the Ripper," always without success.

It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson, Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong.

I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know."

"...Here are the only known facts. The whole of the murders were done after the public-houses were closed; the victims were all of the same class, the lowest of the low, and living within a quarter of a mile of each other; all were murdered within half a mile area; all were killed in the same manner.

That is all we know for certain.

My opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public-house, and of remaining there until closing time.

Leaving with the rest of the customers, with what soldiers call "a touch of delirium triangle," he would leave with one of the women.

My belief is that he would in some dark corner attack her with the knife and cut her up. Having satisfied his maniacal blood-lust he would go away home, and the next day know nothing about it.

One thing is to my mind quite certain, and that is that he lived in the district."

It would appear that Reid, a feet on the ground investigator, subscribed to the theories put forward on this thread.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Here is an interesting interview from Lloyd's Weekly London, Feb 4, 1912. It is with retired Inspector Edmund Reid:

"I have been asked to tell the story of the "Ripper" series many times, but to do so would necessitate the devotion of weeks of labour to the matter.

But this I will say at once. I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone.

The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal "Jack the Ripper," always without success.

It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson, Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong.

I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know."

"...Here are the only known facts. The whole of the murders were done after the public-houses were closed; the victims were all of the same class, the lowest of the low, and living within a quarter of a mile of each other; all were murdered within half a mile area; all were killed in the same manner.

That is all we know for certain.

My opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public-house, and of remaining there until closing time.

Leaving with the rest of the customers, with what soldiers call "a touch of delirium triangle," he would leave with one of the women.

My belief is that he would in some dark corner attack her with the knife and cut her up. Having satisfied his maniacal blood-lust he would go away home, and the next day know nothing about it.

One thing is to my mind quite certain, and that is that he lived in the district."

It would appear that Reid, a feet on the ground investigator, subscribed to the theories put forward on this thread.

Cheers, George

This is one exceptional find George and the tone of his declaration tells us a lot in itself.

It's simplistic yet effective and gives the impression he was tired of all the BS that occurred at the time.

Great find.

RD

[Scott Nelson]

I have always wondered whether the killer escaped the murder sites by going UP?

When you look at photos of the murder locations at Millers Court, Mitre Square, Berner Street etc... there's always a drain pipe situated within yards of the body. And as humans, I have always said that SCIENCE proves that when a person is INITIALLY scanning for potential threats and danger, as human beings we scan around us panoramically and beneath our feet and rarely look up relative to looking around us for danger in the first instance. I.E The last place we INSTINCTIVELY look for threats as humans are UPWARDS.

If he somehow went UP to escape, then at some point he would have to come DOWN. Wouldn't it have been easier to just walk away?