Open Mind

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

Thank you. You are too kind.

Looking at only the murder sites is somewhat akin to looking at the end of a story rather than starting at the beginning.

I have addressed some of your points on the "Stuart Kind" thread so rather than repeat them I'll refer you to my post # 36 on that thread.

Cheers, George

That's great, thank you George.

RD

[Curious Cat]

The Queen's Head would be one to focus on, but not the only one. The Britania Pub (East end of Dorset Street) and The Ten Bells are also in the area of interest, and I wouldn't overlook The Horn of Plenty (west end of Dorset Street) or the Golden Heart Pub (corner of Commercial Street and Hanbury), as both are in high interest areas. On the JtR map project (found here), you can see their locations. There are a few other Beer Shops, which I think are pubs as well and not just "take aways", in the general area as well. If the police were to do a search, the recommendation would be to check out all of the pubs starting centrally (say the Queen's Head or 10 Bells) and working outwards to some distance say within a 5 minute walk. The idea being that JtR spending his evening drinking, and then go on the prowl in search of a victim after the pub had closed. He wouldn't find a victim every time, of course, and may find victims in other ways as well, but one would be considering the idea that he makes many more "scouting" trips than he does successful victim finding. So the police would want to become familiar with those who regularly stay to closing (or close to), and then are again spotted walking around the area rather than going on home. That's the sort of behaviour one might look for, particularly if the individual was seen to chat to woman during his nightly excursions.

Of course, the "high interest area", might also reflect the commonality of the victim's residences, which were all generally in that area, rather than JtR himself. That needs to be kept in mind, but regardless, that area would be a good place to keep watch to see if anyone appears to be doing a "circuit" at night (someone seen walking through the area multiple times late at night, even if they didn't start from one of the pubs, would also be of interest to keep an eye on).

As I say, this type of information is about suggesting where to look, it doesn't tell you what to look for! That's the detective's job. Part of it would be to try and work out why a particular area might be of high interest (just like trying to determine if a spouse has a motive; knowing person X is the spouse, and that a spouse is a person high on the "interest list", doesn't tell you why they might have committed a murder - doesn't give you a motive, that's for the police investigation to determine if there is or is not a motive, etc).

So, my suggestion would be to have undercover detectives watch the pubs in the area and as closing approaches, watch any single men leaving the pub who then appear to go on patrol rather than just "go home". That would entail following them, obviously. Others could be put on fixed point observations, with the idea of seeing if anyone seems to keep passing by (Commercial Street would be a good place for this). Again, the idea is if Person X keeps passing by at semi-regular intervals, then they would appear to be doing some sort of search pattern, particularly if that person always passes going in the same direction (suggesting they are doing a "circular" path). Such an individual would also be worthy of following, to take note of what they are doing, and so forth.

- Jeff

Sorry. Was unceremoniously logged out just after I posted and then had a devil of a time logging back in.

Anyway...

Interesting reply as ever. But what had piqued my interest in the The Queen's Head being a location of particular focus is its place in Hutchinson's story of his encounter with Mary Kelly. The lamp outside being his means of having a good look at the man he says she was with and it being his vantage point of watching them approach from the south and cross over to Dorset Street. Hutchinson claims to know Mary relatively well. Well enough to know which room she lived in within Miller's Court despite it not being in view beyond the threshold of the ally entrance in Dorset Street. He appears to know already where she is heading with the man - hence waiting at The Queen's Head for her to approach, which suggests he would already know where she lived before he even bumped into her that night. My thinking is that he perhaps had previously waited at that spot to see Mary come and go from Dorset Street on occasion. He says he watched Mary and the man walk up along the east side of Commercial Street from that spot but the angle doesn't allow for him to do so. What we get from his statement however is that a) he felt the need to stop and watch Mary after they had parted company, b) he places himself in the ideal spot to see her approach, pass by and then go to where she lives before following her and c) take up an impromptu 45 minute vigil which included approaching her room.

That, I grant you, is rather specific towards Mary Kelly but it also doesn't come across as a one-off. That kind of behaviour - to me anyway - is usually part of a pattern.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry. Was unceremoniously logged out just after I posted and then had a devil of a time logging back in.

Anyway...

Interesting reply as ever. But what had piqued my interest in the The Queen's Head being a location of particular focus is its place in Hutchinson's story of his encounter with Mary Kelly. The lamp outside being his means of having a good look at the man he says she was with and it being his vantage point of watching them approach from the south and cross over to Dorset Street. Hutchinson claims to know Mary relatively well. Well enough to know which room she lived in within Miller's Court despite it not being in view beyond the threshold of the ally entrance in Dorset Street. He appears to know already where she is heading with the man - hence waiting at The Queen's Head for her to approach, which suggests he would already know where she lived before he even bumped into her that night. My thinking is that he perhaps had previously waited at that spot to see Mary come and go from Dorset Street on occasion. He says he watched Mary and the man walk up along the east side of Commercial Street from that spot but the angle doesn't allow for him to do so. What we get from his statement however is that a) he felt the need to stop and watch Mary after they had parted company, b) he places himself in the ideal spot to see her approach, pass by and then go to where she lives before following her and c) take up an impromptu 45 minute vigil which included approaching her room.

That, I grant you, is rather specific towards Mary Kelly but it also doesn't come across as a one-off. That kind of behaviour - to me anyway - is usually part of a pattern.

good post. and bingo.. he was engaged in stalking behaviour with her. ive been saying it for years.

[JeffHamm]

Sorry. Was unceremoniously logged out just after I posted and then had a devil of a time logging back in.

Anyway...

Interesting reply as ever. But what had piqued my interest in the The Queen's Head being a location of particular focus is its place in Hutchinson's story of his encounter with Mary Kelly. The lamp outside being his means of having a good look at the man he says she was with and it being his vantage point of watching them approach from the south and cross over to Dorset Street. Hutchinson claims to know Mary relatively well. Well enough to know which room she lived in within Miller's Court despite it not being in view beyond the threshold of the ally entrance in Dorset Street. He appears to know already where she is heading with the man - hence waiting at The Queen's Head for her to approach, which suggests he would already know where she lived before he even bumped into her that night. My thinking is that he perhaps had previously waited at that spot to see Mary come and go from Dorset Street on occasion. He says he watched Mary and the man walk up along the east side of Commercial Street from that spot but the angle doesn't allow for him to do so. What we get from his statement however is that a) he felt the need to stop and watch Mary after they had parted company, b) he places himself in the ideal spot to see her approach, pass by and then go to where she lives before following her and c) take up an impromptu 45 minute vigil which included approaching her room.

That, I grant you, is rather specific towards Mary Kelly but it also doesn't come across as a one-off. That kind of behaviour - to me anyway - is usually part of a pattern.

Hi,

Hutchinson is someone who has raised a few people's interests. His overly precise description of Astrakhan Man is in all probability unreliable in many of the details. As such, it calls into question many of the other details he gives. One innocent line of thought that occurs to me might be he is just being overly helpful, recalling details due to an overexcited memory for the events filling in all sorts of stuff, or, slightly less noble but still innocent of involvement, if he was trying to game the system for money and felt he had to convince the police he had useful information (perhaps he felt he could recognize A.M. but went over the top in his descriptions to convince the police he was their key witness, and therefore worth paying for his time, etc). Alternatively, others see his behaviour as worthy of further investigation, which is also a fair call.

I don't know enough about him, really, to comment any further. I know that he lived at Wentworth and Commercial, but I'm not sure if he lived there during the murders or if he moved in after Kelly's murder? (I seem to recall seeing that he only moved there after the Kelly murder - but if that's wrong and he lived there all along, that is in the area of interest - and would fit with the location of the apron whether dropped going home or if he went home and later went out to rid himself of it).

Anyway, that sort of discussion is probably best held between people much more versed in the specifics of what we know about Hutchinson.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Abby, Jeff, Curious Cat...

I'm inclined to agree with you all.

I think the balance between Hutchinson's intentions being benign or malicious comes down to what we know about him outside of the confines of the murder case itself.

Hutchinson is not the only "witness" who we still know relatively little about.

Census records, Address records, BMD records, Polling records, Criminal records...

As far as I'm aware, outside of his connection/statement regarding MJK, he is a ghost.

For me, that swings the balance from a man who wants to help; to a man who relishes the attention by attaching himself to the case.
I have never believed he knew Kelly well, because NO OTHER witness ever mentions him.

He also appears on the scene fairly late on, as though his submission of evidence is an afterthought.

In some ways, he reminds me of the man calling himself "Cleary," who as we know appeared to have uncanny psychic abilities, by accurately predicting the Pinchin St Torso BEFORE the unidentified torso was actually dumped.

Israel Schwartz is yet another "witness" who is another ghost.


In terms of Hutchinson, I've always had that niggling feeling that he was involved in some way.
He may have been the accomplice

There is some evidence to suggest that for the murders of Smith, Tabram, Stride, and Mylett, an accomplice was involved.

IF Hutchinson was involved, then he was the accomplice. He had to place himself at the scene; because he was in all probability, seen by another witness.

I would also bet that George Hutchison was an alias...for the simple reason that everyone leaves some kind of trace.

Another little interesting detail is his mention of Romford.
Crossingham lived in Romford.
And it was outside of Crossingham's lodging house that he stood when watching Kelly walk into Miller's Court.

Did he work for Crossingham, and to what extent were Kelly's choices controlled by McCarthy and Crossingham; the 2 most powerful men in Dorset St.

There's also the long-standing argument concerning certain initials allegedly written in blood on the wall next to Kelly.
These letters have been used as a means by which to try and prove Maybrick was the killer, but for me, that seems absurd and ridiculous.

However...looking closely at the photo in question, there COULD (at a push) be markings in blood on the wall, but certainly NOT "F.M"
If anything the wall reads...

"+M"

A Cross symbol followed by an "M"

A Cross and an M

Cross and M

"Crossingham?"


But I digress...

I would suggest that due to the illusive nature of Hutchinson; there's a higher chance of him having been complicit in the murder of Kelly. After all these years no one can say with any certainty who he was.

At least with someone like Lechmere, we have multiple official data sources for him; which you would expect from the average person; to leave a trace.

Hutchinson
Schwartz
Cleary

They're all ghosts, and that's very odd.

Due to Schwartz's theatrical appearance, it wouldn't surprise me if Schwartz was an alias, and an actor playing a part.

Could we be talking about the same man?

George Lusk was a theatre owner/renovator.

Could the accomplice have been an actor who used to work at one of Lusk's theatres?

Perhaps the meaning behind "Dear Boss" has more meaning than we realize.

Lots to ponder



RD

[Wickerman]

Sorry. Was unceremoniously logged out just after I posted and then had a devil of a time logging back in.

Technology - we can love it or hate it.

Interesting reply as ever. But what had piqued my interest in the The Queen's Head being a location of particular focus is its place in Hutchinson's story of his encounter with Mary Kelly. The lamp outside being his means of having a good look at the man he says she was with and it being his vantage point of watching them approach from the south and cross over to Dorset Street....
...He says he watched Mary and the man walk up along the east side of Commercial Street from that spot but the angle doesn't allow for him to do so.

I guess you recall making that same argument some time back.
I posted this view from Google, as we can see, at least from the location of the black bin we can see straight down Commercial Street.
The bin seems to sit at the edge of the old kerb, whether the kerb of 1888 extended to that same spot might be debatable, but I don't recall what the reason was that you claimed he couldn't see down the street.



Where do you think he was standing?
He told police he was against the lamp, not against the pub wall.
He told the press he was on the corner of the street, near the pub.

This view shows the old extent of the kerb that passes under the black bin, directly behind the lamp with the Green light.



Happily, Richards map shows how far out the old kerb extended away from the Queens Head Pub.



Lamps were installed at the edge of the kerb, and Hutchinson says he was against the lamp.
Conclusion - he had a perfect unobstructed view down Commercial Street.

[Curious Cat]

good post. and bingo.. he was engaged in stalking behaviour with her. ive been saying it for years.

I think we're pretty much on the same page regarding Hutchinson.

[Curious Cat]

Hi,

Hutchinson is someone who has raised a few people's interests. His overly precise description of Astrakhan Man is in all probability unreliable in many of the details. As such, it calls into question many of the other details he gives. One innocent line of thought that occurs to me might be he is just being overly helpful, recalling details due to an overexcited memory for the events filling in all sorts of stuff, or, slightly less noble but still innocent of involvement, if he was trying to game the system for money and felt he had to convince the police he had useful information (perhaps he felt he could recognize A.M. but went over the top in his descriptions to convince the police he was their key witness, and therefore worth paying for his time, etc). Alternatively, others see his behaviour as worthy of further investigation, which is also a fair call.

I don't know enough about him, really, to comment any further. I know that he lived at Wentworth and Commercial, but I'm not sure if he lived there during the murders or if he moved in after Kelly's murder? (I seem to recall seeing that he only moved there after the Kelly murder - but if that's wrong and he lived there all along, that is in the area of interest - and would fit with the location of the apron whether dropped going home or if he went home and later went out to rid himself of it).

Anyway, that sort of discussion is probably best held between people much more versed in the specifics of what we know about Hutchinson.

- Jeff

Hutchinson is apparently seen as a reasonable individual by the police who took his statement and the journalist who tracked him down the following day. But then, Dennis Nilsen was seen as reasonable by his co-workers until he was arrested. Whether he's responsible for the other murders is a huge question mark but he's always been a suspect for me in regard to the murder at No.13 Miller's Court.

What I find interesting, going back to the imaging, is that the orange areas could have observation points for the other murder sites like The Queen's Head is for the corner of Dorset Street. Mitre Street seems outside of that but the purple goes into Whitechapel High Street which could be an observation point for Catherine Eddowes earlier in the day before she was arrested for drunkenness further along at Aldgate. Same for Polly Nichols but going in the opposite direction. Worth pointing out that Hutchinson says he walked along Whitechapel Road and turned into Commercial Street where the orange and purple sits in all three of the models.

[Curious Cat]

Abby, Jeff, Curious Cat...

I'm inclined to agree with you all.

I think the balance between Hutchinson's intentions being benign or malicious comes down to what we know about him outside of the confines of the murder case itself.

Hutchinson is not the only "witness" who we still know relatively little about.

Census records, Address records, BMD records, Polling records, Criminal records...

As far as I'm aware, outside of his connection/statement regarding MJK, he is a ghost.

For me, that swings the balance from a man who wants to help; to a man who relishes the attention by attaching himself to the case.
I have never believed he knew Kelly well, because NO OTHER witness ever mentions him.

He also appears on the scene fairly late on, as though his submission of evidence is an afterthought.

In some ways, he reminds me of the man calling himself "Cleary," who as we know appeared to have uncanny psychic abilities, by accurately predicting the Pinchin St Torso BEFORE the unidentified torso was actually dumped.

Israel Schwartz is yet another "witness" who is another ghost.


In terms of Hutchinson, I've always had that niggling feeling that he was involved in some way.
He may have been the accomplice

There is some evidence to suggest that for the murders of Smith, Tabram, Stride, and Mylett, an accomplice was involved.

IF Hutchinson was involved, then he was the accomplice. He had to place himself at the scene; because he was in all probability, seen by another witness.

I would also bet that George Hutchison was an alias...for the simple reason that everyone leaves some kind of trace.

Another little interesting detail is his mention of Romford.
Crossingham lived in Romford.
And it was outside of Crossingham's lodging house that he stood when watching Kelly walk into Miller's Court.

Did he work for Crossingham, and to what extent were Kelly's choices controlled by McCarthy and Crossingham; the 2 most powerful men in Dorset St.

There's also the long-standing argument concerning certain initials allegedly written in blood on the wall next to Kelly.
These letters have been used as a means by which to try and prove Maybrick was the killer, but for me, that seems absurd and ridiculous.

However...looking closely at the photo in question, there COULD (at a push) be markings in blood on the wall, but certainly NOT "F.M"
If anything the wall reads...

"+M"

A Cross symbol followed by an "M"

A Cross and an M

Cross and M

"Crossingham?"


But I digress...

I would suggest that due to the illusive nature of Hutchinson; there's a higher chance of him having been complicit in the murder of Kelly. After all these years no one can say with any certainty who he was.

At least with someone like Lechmere, we have multiple official data sources for him; which you would expect from the average person; to leave a trace.

Hutchinson
Schwartz
Cleary

They're all ghosts, and that's very odd.

Due to Schwartz's theatrical appearance, it wouldn't surprise me if Schwartz was an alias, and an actor playing a part.

Could we be talking about the same man?

George Lusk was a theatre owner/renovator.

Could the accomplice have been an actor who used to work at one of Lusk's theatres?

Perhaps the meaning behind "Dear Boss" has more meaning than we realize.

Lots to ponder



RD

The struggle with Hutchinson is Joseph Barnett seemingly not knowing him and visa-versa. I've said before, to know Joseph is not necessarily to know Mary but to know Mary means also knowing Joseph and Hutchinson claims to know Mary. Hutchinson and Barnett apparently strangers to each other despite Mary being said to have known Hutchinson longer than Barnett. He's not just a ghost to us, Hutchinson appears to be a ghost to those there at the time.

[Curious Cat]

Technology - we can love it or hate it.



I guess you recall making that same argument some time back.
I posted this view from Google, as we can see, at least from the location of the black bin we can see straight down Commercial Street.
The bin seems to sit at the edge of the old kerb, whether the kerb of 1888 extended to that same spot might be debatable, but I don't recall what the reason was that you claimed he couldn't see down the street.



Where do you think he was standing?
He told police he was against the lamp, not against the pub wall.
He told the press he was on the corner of the street, near the pub.

This view shows the old extent of the kerb that passes under the black bin, directly behind the lamp with the Green light.



Happily, Richards map shows how far out the old kerb extended away from the Queens Head Pub.



Lamps were installed at the edge of the kerb, and Hutchinson says he was against the lamp.
Conclusion - he had a perfect unobstructed view down Commercial Street.

Both photos are taken from the road rather than the pavement.

The 'lamp' with the green light is a traffic light for a pelican crossing. This was not there in 1888.

The lamp in 1888 was not on the spot where the bin is.

The lamp would have been on the spot between the blackboard and the bottom left corner of bumped yellow paving slabs. Most other street lamps in and around that area of Commercial Street that were in place in the 1880s are still in place even today. The one outside The Queen's Head was removed at some point in the first quarter of the 20th century. But with the other lamps still in place it puts the placement of the lamp outside The Queen's Head not on the edge of the pavement but nearer the corner of the building. This is probably why it was removed while others stayed in place. If stood on the spot the corner of the building on the other side of the junction of Fashion Street blocks the view down Commercial Street. You wouldn't see further than the back of that white van. Hutchinson certainly would not have been able to see down to the junction of Flower and Dean Street from that position.

[JeffHamm]

Hutchinson is apparently seen as a reasonable individual by the police who took his statement and the journalist who tracked him down the following day. But then, Dennis Nilsen was seen as reasonable by his co-workers until he was arrested. Whether he's responsible for the other murders is a huge question mark but he's always been a suspect for me in regard to the murder at No.13 Miller's Court.

What I find interesting, going back to the imaging, is that the orange areas could have observation points for the other murder sites like The Queen's Head is for the corner of Dorset Street. Mitre Street seems outside of that but the purple goes into Whitechapel High Street which could be an observation point for Catherine Eddowes earlier in the day before she was arrested for drunkenness further along at Aldgate. Same for Polly Nichols but going in the opposite direction. Worth pointing out that Hutchinson says he walked along Whitechapel Road and turned into Commercial Street where the orange and purple sits in all three of the models.

Keep in mind that what a spatial analysis is trying to capture is an underlying general commonality of the offender's (ideally) pattern of movements and the areas in which they are generally familiar. In the ideal situation, each crime location represents a separate journey, all of which originate from the same starting point (the anchor point). Then, knowing only the end destination point for each journey (the crime locations), one tries to infer the probable location of the common starting point (the anchor point). Our spatial awareness (in general, obviously individuals will vary in this from one extreme to the other) tends to be centred around various "anchor points" in our daily lives, the most obvious being our residence. Work is another, as might be a place of worship, a pub, a sports club, weekly shopping area (grocery store/mall), and so forth. There tend to be a few locations we visit frequently, and as a result, we become familiar with areas surrounding those "anchor points" more than areas we do not generally have reason to go to. Offenders are therefore more likely to spot "potential locations" for their criminal activity in those areas of high familiarity.

Offenders who target prostitutes in red light districts, will generally spend a fair amount of time cruising those areas, becoming familiar with them. This behaviour is often, if not always, known by their associates, and in such series it is not uncommon for police to therefore start monitoring vehicles and looking for those that appear in the area more than others.

The ideal, of course, is not always the case, and deviations from that ideal can be such things as the double event, when it is entirely reasonable to presume that JtR went straight from Stride to Eddowes, rather than Stride -> anchor point -> Eddowes -> anchor point. In this case the anchor point probably being a residence, but as it is quite likely that Stride -> Eddowes is what happened (provided of course Stride is a Ripper victim, another complication to consider), then some of the spatial information about the Eddowes' crime will be influenced somewhat by the fact that journey will have started slightly differently (there's the Stride murder deflecting him and altering his movements after all).

Also, given offenders will likely have multiple anchor points in their lives, not all crime locations reflect a single common anchor point (note, the "journey to the crime" could always start from the offender's residence, but the anchor point from which they become familiar with/spotted the potential crime location could be their work place - that's when they made the decision this was a good place to go so in that case the work place is the anchor point, not the residence - if that make sense?)

In the JtR series, we're looking at what could be an offender going to a "red light district", because that's where his chosen victim type can be found. As such, the spatial pattern could be a bit removed from his pattern of daily "anchor points". While that might seem a problem, in some ways it might not be because it raises the possibility that we're dealing with a single anchor point. This is why I think a pub, or cluster of pubs in the same area, is a worthwhile idea to consider. That JtR frequents a pub (or a couple in the same general area), and it is from there that he's become familiar with the surrounding area. Given he is on foot, then that anchor point is still probably not too far from where he probably lives, but his place of residence could be away from rather than inside of the search area.

Now, of course, it could also be that JtR worked in the area somewhere, which is how he also becomes familiar with the local pubs and so forth, so we have to be careful not to overlook things entirely.

Regardless, where he individually finds each victim, though, doesn't necessarily have to be in a "hot spotted" location. The "hot spot" is trying to find areas where his journey (if you will) starts, with the idea that he's more likely to find victims somewhat closer to the anchor point because he's likely to spend more time in that area.

Let's take the pubs around the Queen's Head and the Ten Bells area as our "anchor point". From there, if he journeys down Hanbury Street to Whitechapel Road, he could have met Nichols at the end of that. Starting again from the "hot spot" a journey down Commercial and continuing gets him to the pubs where Stride was spotted. Fleeing there towards Mitre Square makes sense if he's trying to head back towards the hot spot because from there he has to get home. And if Chapman were killed early, she's close to the hot spot (he's passing that way perhaps going home), and if she's killed late (which I favour, but that's neither here nor there really), then it would suggest he probably lives nearby and that he does have some sort of connection to the area (perhaps he was going to the market? and "got lucky"? we can make up anything, the point is that his reason for being there for a late murder is probably not because he's at the pub - although didn't some open to sell food in the mornings?).

Anyway, there can, of course, be commonalities of the victims that the analysis picks up on, and given all the victims lived in the hot spot area, well, we could be picking up on that. JtR still has to find the victims, of course, and given he seems to find victims that live in that area, then that still means the hot spot area would have investigative utility (look here, who is here a lot? Particularly anyone who seems to be a bit out of place, etc), although I'm not sure what we could do with it now.

- Jeff

[Curious Cat]

Keep in mind that what a spatial analysis is trying to capture is an underlying general commonality of the offender's (ideally) pattern of movements and the areas in which they are generally familiar. In the ideal situation, each crime location represents a separate journey, all of which originate from the same starting point (the anchor point). Then, knowing only the end destination point for each journey (the crime locations), one tries to infer the probable location of the common starting point (the anchor point). Our spatial awareness (in general, obviously individuals will vary in this from one extreme to the other) tends to be centred around various "anchor points" in our daily lives, the most obvious being our residence. Work is another, as might be a place of worship, a pub, a sports club, weekly shopping area (grocery store/mall), and so forth. There tend to be a few locations we visit frequently, and as a result, we become familiar with areas surrounding those "anchor points" more than areas we do not generally have reason to go to. Offenders are therefore more likely to spot "potential locations" for their criminal activity in those areas of high familiarity.

Offenders who target prostitutes in red light districts, will generally spend a fair amount of time cruising those areas, becoming familiar with them. This behaviour is often, if not always, known by their associates, and in such series it is not uncommon for police to therefore start monitoring vehicles and looking for those that appear in the area more than others.

The ideal, of course, is not always the case, and deviations from that ideal can be such things as the double event, when it is entirely reasonable to presume that JtR went straight from Stride to Eddowes, rather than Stride -> anchor point -> Eddowes -> anchor point. In this case the anchor point probably being a residence, but as it is quite likely that Stride -> Eddowes is what happened (provided of course Stride is a Ripper victim, another complication to consider), then some of the spatial information about the Eddowes' crime will be influenced somewhat by the fact that journey will have started slightly differently (there's the Stride murder deflecting him and altering his movements after all).

Also, given offenders will likely have multiple anchor points in their lives, not all crime locations reflect a single common anchor point (note, the "journey to the crime" could always start from the offender's residence, but the anchor point from which they become familiar with/spotted the potential crime location could be their work place - that's when they made the decision this was a good place to go so in that case the work place is the anchor point, not the residence - if that make sense?)

In the JtR series, we're looking at what could be an offender going to a "red light district", because that's where his chosen victim type can be found. As such, the spatial pattern could be a bit removed from his pattern of daily "anchor points". While that might seem a problem, in some ways it might not be because it raises the possibility that we're dealing with a single anchor point. This is why I think a pub, or cluster of pubs in the same area, is a worthwhile idea to consider. That JtR frequents a pub (or a couple in the same general area), and it is from there that he's become familiar with the surrounding area. Given he is on foot, then that anchor point is still probably not too far from where he probably lives, but his place of residence could be away from rather than inside of the search area.

Now, of course, it could also be that JtR worked in the area somewhere, which is how he also becomes familiar with the local pubs and so forth, so we have to be careful not to overlook things entirely.

Regardless, where he individually finds each victim, though, doesn't necessarily have to be in a "hot spotted" location. The "hot spot" is trying to find areas where his journey (if you will) starts, with the idea that he's more likely to find victims somewhat closer to the anchor point because he's likely to spend more time in that area.

Let's take the pubs around the Queen's Head and the Ten Bells area as our "anchor point". From there, if he journeys down Hanbury Street to Whitechapel Road, he could have met Nichols at the end of that. Starting again from the "hot spot" a journey down Commercial and continuing gets him to the pubs where Stride was spotted. Fleeing there towards Mitre Square makes sense if he's trying to head back towards the hot spot because from there he has to get home. And if Chapman were killed early, she's close to the hot spot (he's passing that way perhaps going home), and if she's killed late (which I favour, but that's neither here nor there really), then it would suggest he probably lives nearby and that he does have some sort of connection to the area (perhaps he was going to the market? and "got lucky"? we can make up anything, the point is that his reason for being there for a late murder is probably not because he's at the pub - although didn't some open to sell food in the mornings?).

Anyway, there can, of course, be commonalities of the victims that the analysis picks up on, and given all the victims lived in the hot spot area, well, we could be picking up on that. JtR still has to find the victims, of course, and given he seems to find victims that live in that area, then that still means the hot spot area would have investigative utility (look here, who is here a lot? Particularly anyone who seems to be a bit out of place, etc), although I'm not sure what we could do with it now.

- Jeff

In regard to the pubs themselves, it's unlikely the killer actually drank in them. The way they seek out, pursue, subdue, kill, place and mutilate the victims suggests a sober and methodical approach. More likely the killer waited outside locations for potential victims.

[GBinOz]

This is why I think a pub, or cluster of pubs in the same area, is a worthwhile idea to consider. That JtR frequents a pub (or a couple in the same general area), and it is from there that he's become familiar with the surrounding area. Given he is on foot, then that anchor point is still probably not too far from where he probably lives, but his place of residence could be away from rather than inside of the search area.

Hi Jeff,

I have often pondered how, even at the height of the murders, Jack persuaded women to accompany him. One reason would be that he was an acquaintance that drank with them in the local pubs, and he stalked them after closing and feigned a "chance encounter". Another possible reason that they may not feel threatened might be the following that I lifted from a Jerry Dunlop post in the other place:



Decatur Daily Despatch
Illinois, U.S.A.
19 July 1889

"An ex member of the Metropolitan police,who was standing talking with a friend at the corner of Castle alley, not more than forty yards distant,
about the time of the murder, neither saw nor heard anything."

New York Herald Cable
"The information of police matters possessed by the Ripper seems sufficient grounds for an investigation of such ex-members as spend time in or about Whitechapel."

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

In regard to the pubs themselves, it's unlikely the killer actually drank in them. The way they seek out, pursue, subdue, kill, place and mutilate the victims suggests a sober and methodical approach. More likely the killer waited outside locations for potential victims.

It is very common for serial killers to be drunk or otherwise intoxicated at the time. The idea of them being overly skilful tacticians of crime is a bit of hollywood - they are often situation aware, and on the lookout for opportunity, but they also often have been drinking at the time as well, and they often misjudge the risk they are taking. It would not at all surprise me if Jack were similar, drank in the pubs, and while not falling over drunk, he wouldn't have to be completely sober either. Of course, not all of them are intoxicated at the time, but it is very common and, while I don't have the numbers (so could be wrong), my impression is that it is more common than not. But then, it may just be because I recall reading when they are, and when they are not it simply isn't mentioned (i.e. they may say "and he was drinking beer when he went out to find his next victim ..." but they don't say "and he was entirely sober when ..." - not drinking isn't meantioned, but drinking is, so I may simply remember reading about drinking often).

Anyway, we obviously can't know for sure, given we don't know who Jack was, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea that he spent his time in the pub prior to going out and looking for victims. The timing sort of works (although Nichols murder is well after the pubs closed, and Annie's may have been early morning, the Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly murders at least seem to be close enough after closing time that he may have been prowling around afterwards. Even Nichols could have been at the end of his prowling time, and an early murder for Chapman would be easy to fit, and even the late murder time just means he may have other reasons to be in the area as well, although I think some pubs were open in the morning??? Or do I have that wrong?? There are some details like that that sometimes spring to mind as if I've read them, but I can't be sure I'm not confusing something else I've read and misremembering it as a discussion on pub hours). And of course, you could be correct as well, maybe he wasn't a drinker, in which case he wouldn't be found in the pubs. I would think someone who regularly was in the pub, but didn't drink, would stand out and be remembered as a bit "odd".

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I have often pondered how, even at the height of the murders, Jack persuaded women to accompany him. One reason would be that he was an acquaintance that drank with them in the local pubs, and he stalked them after closing and feigned a "chance encounter". Another possible reason that they may not feel threatened might be the following that I lifted from a Jerry Dunlop post in the other place:



Decatur Daily Despatch
Illinois, U.S.A.
19 July 1889

"An ex member of the Metropolitan police,who was standing talking with a friend at the corner of Castle alley, not more than forty yards distant,
about the time of the murder, neither saw nor heard anything."

New York Herald Cable
"The information of police matters possessed by the Ripper seems sufficient grounds for an investigation of such ex-members as spend time in or about Whitechapel."

Best regards, George

Interesting. I've not seen that before.

I think all the victims were pretty desperate, so I don't think Jack would have had that much trouble as long as he didn't have horns and dribbled green saliva. Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly (and probably Eddowes and Stride) appeared to have gone seeking customers on the night of their murders, so again, he just had to not raise their suspicions rather than actually gain their trust, if you know what I mean.

That aside, it wouldn't surprise me if they "had seen him around before", given it is likely he spent some amount of time in the area. It also wouldn't surprise me if he also frequently availed himself to their services (common amongst serial murderers who target prostitutes as victims; and by "their" I just mean prostitutes, not necessarily that he had picked up any of the victims before, although he may have - there are cases where a serial killer has engaged one or more of his victims a few times in the past before killing them, so maybe Jack was one of those?)

The ex-policeman is an interesting angle as well. Certainly there have been examples of that as well. I'm not sure if anyone recently has followed up on that angle. Might be interesting, even if nothing more came of it than we learn about the police force in more detail

Anyway, thanks for that George.

- Jeff