Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[The Rookie Detective]

Found it. The map was in Bruce Paley's book "The Simple Truth", which advocated Barnett as the ripper. The letters V to Z are the dwelling places of the C5, in order. The numbers 8 to 11 are the dwelling places of Barnett from 1887 until he moved out of Miller's Court.

Profiling has indicated that Jack lived in, or in the vicinity of, Flower and Dean St. Barnett seems to qualify in this regard, but who else lived in that vicinity? John Kelly, McCarthy, Bowyer, James Hardiman, Richardson, Hutchinson. Anyone else?

Cheers, George

Exceptional post.

May I ask whether this includes other "potential" victims like McKenzie and Coles?
Although it will sound unpopular I believe it's better to include the other potential victims in addition to the canonical 5 because it's better to have them than to not have them as then we have the most complete picture possible and then can adapt it accordingly for those who are staunch Canonical 5 believers.
I would also add the Pinchin Street Torso and the Torso found under New Scotland Yard building to be even more controversial.

Once there's a map that illustrates the absolute maximum potential of Canonical 5, potential other victims and the torso killings, then it will give the absolute maximum number possible in terms of map locations.

In terms of the book that implicates Barnett, I agree that there are countless others that also lived/lodged/worked in that area and so the objectivity is lost and it nullifies the significance of the maps intention to be impartial.

What's he biggest mistake that ANY book on the ripper makes?... Almost every publication is written with a favourable suspect on mind depending on the authors beliefs.
But I believe that a map of this kind NEEDS to remain impartial in order for biase not to creep in and then lose objectivity.

The map you have shown is brilliant but I think it doesn't tell the whole picture (quite literally)

Is there a map like the one you've shown BUT including all the other extended parameters I mentioned?

RD

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Each victim is represented with their own map that shows, amongst other thing, where they lodged in relation to their murder location.

JM

Thanks JM. You're right of course. I was distracted by looking for a compilation map such as the one in Paley's book. Every time I look at the CSI: Whitechapel book I am amazed at the atmospheric drawings and the way it provides an unbiased treatment of a wealth of topics. Definitely a must have.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Here's a map, but I have been unable to recall the legend and the source.

Found it. The map was in Bruce Paley's book "The Simple Truth", which advocated Barnett as the ripper. The letters V to Z are the dwelling places of the C5, in order. The numbers 8 to 11 are the dwelling places of Barnett from 1887 until he moved out of Miller's Court.

Profiling has indicated that Jack lived in, or in the vicinity of, Flower and Dean St. Barnett seems to qualify in this regard, but who else lived in that vicinity? John Kelly, McCarthy, Bowyer, James Hardiman, Richardson, Hutchinson. Anyone else?

Cheers, George

[jmenges]

Hi George,

Each victim is represented with their own map that shows, amongst other thing, where they lodged in relation to their murder location.

JM

[GBinOz]

Try the book CSI:Whitechapel by John Bennett and Paul Begg.

JM

Hi JM,

I have that book, and it is spectacularly illustrated with photographs, drawings and maps. However, I couldn't find in it a map showing the victims dwelling places.

Cheers, George

[jmenges]

I've yet to see a fully rendered map of murder locations AND the lodging houses in which the victims dwelled before they were murdered and so have had to concoct a make shift one myself to try and build a bigger picture.


RD

Try the book CSI:Whitechapel by John Bennett and Paul Begg.

JM

[GBinOz]

In other words, the murder sites are the flour and butter of the cake, but unless focus is also drawn to the places the victims lived prior to their respective murders, then it's like making a cake with no sugar....it's missing a key ingredient.

I've yet to see a fully rendered map of murder locations AND the lodging houses in which the victims dwelled before they were murdered and so have had to concoct a make shift one myself to try and build a bigger picture.

RD

Here's a map, but I have been unable to recall the legend and the source.

I've often wondered whether Jack knew the victims from where they lived. I suppose that would remove the "serial" aspect from the murders?

Cheers, George

[c.d.]

There are shelters across town for the homeless. A number of homeless frequent the same shelters, they claim some shelters are not well supervised, so your things can be stolen while you sleep. Some shelters are less safe than others, some are more comfortable than others. Some have kitchens for the homeless to cook and eat, others do not.

If you get my point, all these reasons and more are just as easily the same for the lower classes of the East End in 1888. It's all part of the day to day existence for the lower classes.

It could also be that some shelters tended to fill to capacity early in the evening and would close their doors. Prostitutes might not make their doss money until late in the evening which would limit the available shelters still open. Also, some shelters might have been sticklers about the time they close while others might let in stragglers late at night.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

MJK was relatively new to the game so to speak and so owing McCarthy money probably wasn't a good idea.
Not forgetting that MJK wasn't a regular prostitute compared to the other victims and I would suggest that by taking in another woman who we know was a prostitute, it opened MJK up to more potential harm.

Joe Barnett was essentially her protection in not just a physical sense but from a moral point of view. Once Barnett left MJK was caught in a world that was way out of her depth.

I believe theres a chance that the killer was made aware that MJK was new to the world of prostitution (relatively) and he may have seen that as a green light to unleash his full wrath upon her.
The timing of Barnett leaving is significant and of all the potential suspects he's the only one I feel had nothing to do with the murders.

RD

Where does the idea MJK was not a regular prostitute come from RD?

The general consensus is that she was the most regular of all the C5.

It does seem that she had stopped for a while, when she was living with Barnett, and had only recently gone back to it.

But I have to say, I have never heard the suggestion she was not regular compared to the other victims before.
Even Rubenhold does not go there.

Would be interested in you evidence and understanding of this.

Steve

[etenguy]

I've yet to see a fully rendered map of murder locations AND the lodging houses in which the victims dwelled before they were murdered and so have had to concoct a make shift one myself to try and build a bigger picture.
RD

Hi ID

I think that data would be useful - if it included where they stayed up to a month or so of being murdered, who owned the lodging houses, who worked there (hard to find I imagine) and any other related data - who knows what that might tell us - it might be nothing but until it is collated we don't know. Good luck with pulling it together.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think Polly was staying at Thrawl Street when she was murdered, not that it changes what you're saying given its proximity.

Given that these women were among the most desperate people in East London, and the lodging houses you mention were for the most desperate people in East London, then how likely is it that these women wouldn't have passed through those lodging houses at some point?

I'm not suggesting it's a non-starter, more that it might not necessarily be the connection that it seems at first light.

Nichols was staying at 18 Thrawl Street, you're absolutely correct.
That was Wilmotts Lodging House but it had a strict single sex occupancy for beds, ergo, men and women weren't allowed to share a bed.

On the 24th August, a week before Nichols was murdered, she left 18 Thrawl Street and instead moved to The White House common lodging house at 56 Flower and Dean Street.
This lodging house permitted cross-sex occupancy and men and women were permitted to share a bed.
For that reason, prostitution was common place and this particular lodging house had a bad reputation.

And so with regards to your point, Nichols moved to 56 Flower and Dean Street and was only there a week before she was murdered.


Not forgetting of course that Eddowes lodged at 55 (opposite 56) Flower and Dean Street at Cooneys common lodging house shortly before she was murdered.

And Stride at 32 Flower and Dean Street when she was murdered.

Interestingly, Stride has not stayed in Flower and Dean Street since June and had only returned to 32 Flower and Dean Street a few days before she was murdered.

Dr Barnardo visited the lodging house on Wednesday 26th September and according to Bardardo, Stride was there in the kitchen when he was speaking to the unfortunates in the kitchen. He later identifed her in the mortuary.

That's Nichols, Stride and Eddowes.

But if you include others outside the Canonical 5 then you can add a couple of others to that list.

Chapman was staying at 35 Dorset Street at Crossinghams but unlike the other women who had only recently moved to Flower and Dean Street, Chapmam was a long term regular at Crossinghams and had been stayinf there since at least June. She had a regular bed there.

There was at least 2 other subsequent murders in the same lodging house over the years and it had arguably the worst reputation of all the lodging houses. Prostitution was rife in Dorset Street.

And with MJK, she of course was in Miller's Court, but that ran directly north off of Dorset Street (The East end of Dorset Street just a stones throw from Flower and Dean Street)

And McCarthy ran Miller's Court and lodging houses in Dorset Street along with Crossingham. It's fair to say that between Crossingham and McCarthy they owned Dorset Street and were the local king pins.

MJK was relatively new to the game so to speak and so owing McCarthy money probably wasn't a good idea.
Not forgetting that MJK wasn't a regular prostitute compared to the other victims and I would suggest that by taking in another woman who we know was a prostitute, it opened MJK up to more potential harm.

Joe Barnett was essentially her protection in not just a physical sense but from a moral point of view. Once Barnett left MJK was caught in a world that was way out of her depth.

I believe theres a chance that the killer was made aware that MJK was new to the world of prostitution (relatively) and he may have seen that as a green light to unleash his full wrath upon her.
The timing of Barnett leaving is significant and of all the potential suspects he's the only one I feel had nothing to do with the murders.

RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

Very true; but it's not that the victims were all linked to lodging Houses that is significant; it's the fact that all the victims can be linked to the SAME few lodging Houses.

In fact, from Tabram to Coles, every victim can be linked to lodging houses on either Dorset Street OR Flower and Dean Street, which are just yards away from each other.

RD

I think Polly was staying at Thrawl Street when she was murdered, not that it changes what you're saying given its proximity.

Given that these women were among the most desperate people in East London, and the lodging houses you mention were for the most desperate people in East London, then how likely is it that these women wouldn't have passed through those lodging houses at some point?

I'm not suggesting it's a non-starter, more that it might not necessarily be the connection that it seems at first light.

[The Rookie Detective]

Brilliant points as always from Wickerman and C.D. and you're both absolutely correct in your responses.

I am going to start a new thread shortly regarding the lodging houses etc...as I'm concerned about highjacking this thread unfairly.

The only thing I would add is that we often focus on the murder sites; which is of course correct because the murder sites are where the killer has been.
However, when you add the locations of the lodging houses in which the victims were known to have frequented shortly before their death, then it really adds an important dynamic to proceedings.

In other words, the murder sites are the flour and butter of the cake, but unless focus is also drawn to the places the victims lived prior to their respective murders, then it's like making a cake with no sugar....it's missing a key ingredient.

I've yet to see a fully rendered map of murder locations AND the lodging houses in which the victims dwelled before they were murdered and so have had to concoct a make shift one myself to try and build a bigger picture.


RD

[Wickerman]

There are shelters across town for the homeless. A number of homeless frequent the same shelters, they claim some shelters are not well supervised, so your things can be stolen while you sleep. Some shelters are less safe than others, some are more comfortable than others. Some have kitchens for the homeless to cook and eat, others do not.

If you get my point, all these reasons and more are just as easily the same for the lower classes of the East End in 1888. It's all part of the day to day existence for the lower classes.

[c.d.]

It is an interesting idea I admit and I don't want to throw cold water on it. But if we play devil's advocate could it be that the people that ran those particular lodging houses were known to provide a free bed in exchange for...uh...you know. Also, could the victims all have frequented a handful of pubs? Or maybe there is some other connection we don't know about.

Let's see what turns up.

c.d.