The Hunter Fallacy

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

In light of recent, and often farcical, attempts at plotting JtR and his motions I am starting this thread.

The general (at least on these websites) perception seems to be that JtR was some kind of hunter. By this I mean venturing out at night or whenever with the express intention of bagging himself a whore (hereafter referred to as "hunter").

Based on that, people then think they can do calculations and plotting and so on in some attempt at finding the most likely location from where this hunter ventured out. And from this sort of stuff we end up with the usual "local/non-local" "toff", "MO" "profiling" guff.

On some level it is reasonable to think he was a "hunter" given that his victims were virtually part of a flock and he seemed to select the weakest, those who were drunk, desperate or sick. In similar vein to any hunting type activity.

And then there is loads of bilking about indoors/outdoors, MO, etc etc.


Alternatively and perhaps more logically is that JtR was NOT a hunter and was, up unto a certain point, a fairly normal individual who was on the streets for reasons other than hunting. Such as drinking, shoppoing, going to work etc.

At some point the whores interacted with him and a chain of events was set in process resulting in their deaths.

This is supported to a greater extent than the hunting noyion by a number of facts:

1. The victims chose the location. What hunter allows the prey to decide?

2. The locations chosen were not optimal for hunting purposes. What sort of hunter decides to eat his prey in a spot where he himself may be eaten (caught)?

3. The victims were exactly the ones most likely to approach our fairly nonplussed killer. They were drunk or desperate (even for whores) and actively seeking custom. Exactly the sorts who would be approaching men on the street. Except Stride perhaps. Make of that what you will.

4. There is no rhyme or reason to the killings. One indoors, some outdoors, some secluded, some virtually on the street, etc. This is largely because he wasnt hunting, had no particular means of catching victims and didnt think at all about how he was going to kill someone or what he would do after.

5. Some women were completely hacked up, some werent. Largely because as a non hunter he had not chosen spots based on chances of discovery or how long he would have...the locations and times were solely dependant on chance, where the whores brought him and had no forethought whats so ever.

A lot indicates a non-hunting killer and very little indicates a preplanned hunting type of activity.

We hear a lot about "profiling" and so on but what strikes one most in the recollections of less famous serial killers is the complete happenstance of the killings. They did not set out to kill anyone and just a combination of circumstances led to the event happening.

Much like our chap.

When one gets over the misconception that our man was some kind of predator.....then one can begin to accept the logic that does not necessitate fallacies of the kind that he must have been a local with a hunting ground, or that he was from Whitechapel because thats where he confined himself, or that he had some kind of centrally located bolthole, or that he was looking for victims, or that Kelly was some kind of ultimate fantasy for him, or that the extent of mutilations indicate some kind of progression etc etc.

p

[SirRobertAnderson]

The general (at least on these websites) perception seems to be that JtR was some kind of hunter. By this I mean venturing out at night or whenever with the express intention of bagging himself a whore (hereafter referred to as "hunter")......

.........Alternatively and perhaps more logically is that JtR was NOT a hunter and was, up unto a certain point, a fairly normal individual who was on the streets for reasons other than hunting. Such as drinking, shoppoing, going to work etc.

At some point the whores interacted with him and a chain of events was set in process resulting in their deaths.....................

...........This is supported to a greater extent than the hunting noyion by a number of facts:

1. The victims chose the location. What hunter allows the prey to decide?.........If Jack was soliciting a whore, or vice versa, he had to let them pick their spot. Each whore knew where a 'safe' area was to be undisturbed for a few minutes. Refusal to go to their spot and insisting on his "place" would have been a non-starter IMHO, especially after the few two murders.

................When one gets over the misconception that our man was some kind of predator.....then one can begin to accept the logic that does not necessitate fallacies of the kind that he must have been a local with a hunting ground, or that he was from Whitechapel because thats where he confined himself, or that he had some kind of centrally located bolthole, or that he was looking for victims..... I think it is very hard to get around the need for a detailed knowledge of Whitechapel and that's why the local/bolthole concept keeps popping up. But that doesn't really contradict your point, does it? He could have been much along the lines you suggest but happen to be a local or have an office nearby.

p

I like the outside the box thinking, Lars. Good stuff. You sure you wouldn't rather discuss how Hutch outwitted Abberline ? :faint:

A few thoughts leap immediately to mind. Perhaps he frequented a lot of whores, but if one said "the bad word" or suggested "the bad act" he flipped out and morphed into Jack. Of course, the trigger word or act could have been quite innocuous. Here's another angle for you: perhaps he had a drug problem and only felt murderous when addled.

Perhaps he only killed when he felt no sense of arousal.

Lots of things to consider.

I do have a couple of rebuttals, though, which I've put alongside your text in boldface.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Sir BOb

If Jack was soliciting a whore, or vice versa, he had to let them pick their spot. Each whore knew where a 'safe' area was to be undisturbed for a few minutes. Refusal to go to their spot and insisting on his "place" would have been a non-starter IMHO, especially after the few two murders.

I would agree.....but with enough money? Plus...how much more dangerous could it have been for Kelly for example, or Chapman to have gobe to e secluded spot a little deeper in in Whitechapel? Plus, a spot good for killing with plenty of escape opportunities must surely have been a good spot for a whore to escape from? In which case....why would they be scared?

I think it is very hard to get around the need for a detailed knowledge of Whitechapel and that's why the local/bolthole concept keeps popping up. But that doesn't really contradict your point, does it? He could have been much along the lines you suggest but happen to be a local or have an office nearby.

I'm nothing if not reasonable Sir BOb....so I'll tell ya what: Can you give me ONE example of Jack displaying some kind of definite knowledge of Whitechapel greater than that of the main streets?

p

[Sam Flynn]

Hello, MrPThe victims chose the location.I'm not so sure we know that was true in all cases. Who's to say that Jack didn't use the "there's a quiet spot I know... it's just through here" tactic on occasion - say, with Chapman or Eddowes? Who's to say that Jack didn't engage Polly Nichols in any sort of dialogue, but merely allowed her to walk past him as he walked the other way, before grabbing her from behind?

[dougie]

Hello, MrPWho's to say that Jack didn't use the "there's a quiet spot I know" tactic on occasion?
Or "Do you come here often?"
Not sure the victims chose the location.....you could argue Jack chose the location and waited for someone to turn up I guess.

[Sam Flynn]

Or "Do you come here often?"
Not sure the victims chose the location.....you could argue Jack chose the location and waited for someone to turn up I guess.As, indeed, many hunters do - in which sense they, too, choose the location to an extent.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho fellas

Its hard to imagine Jack choosing Chapmans spot? Its hardly an easy spot to get away from? Might be good for sex but gutting a woman virtually under a window and in a cage with one way out......its hardly handy.

As for Mitre Square.....I don't think Eddowes intended on sex there at all. I think thats where she accosted him about wherever and thats where she got hers.

Kelly....not much doubt there.

Nichols.....hard to know.

Stride......who knows.

Either way......there is no evidence of any kind of "hunting" behavior at all. No one mentions anyone "following" any of teh victims, none of teh victims were known to have been in a pub prior to their killing where they could have been hunted, etc etc.

However all the victims may plasuibly have simply bumped into our man who wasn't planning to kill anyone until the meeting happened or something set him off a little later.

We also know for certainty that all the victims, bar Stride possibly, were absolutely dead set on getting a client as they either said so or their bed/rent depended on it.

WE know they couldnt get clients without soliciting on the streets, we know they mostly ended up dead in places where prostitutes were known to take clients or quiet places suitable for sex but not murder, we know there was no evidence of the bodies being hidden or taken where they may not be found for hours as one might expect if the killer were in charge and so on.

If JtR was out to kill a woman and had planned to do so......he was hardly very good at it?

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Dougie

A number of things are problematical for Jacks having just waited until someone came along.

1. I cannot imagine there was much traffic through places such as where Chapman ended up.

2. Hanging around selecting a victim simply cannot have been a good plan after the first two?

p

[Sam Flynn]

I'm nothing if not reasonable Sir BOb....so I'll tell ya what: Can you give me ONE example of Jack displaying some kind of definite knowledge of Whitechapel greater than that of the main streets?Here's one: he didn't kill anywhere else. What difference would it have made for him to kill in deepest Ratcliff, or Poplar, or Bethnal Green, if all he had to do was follow the main streets? Or Camden, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark, Marylebone... (etc. etc.) for that matter? The question you should be asking is: why the main streets of Whitechapel specifically?

Sorry, MrP, I could see where that question was going so - like a good hunter - I decided to cut to the chase.

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho SamF

Sorry, MrP, I could see where that question was going so - like a good hunter - I decided to cut to the chase.

Then your radar is misaligned as I was going for a carpet bombing of the Golden Calves of Ripperology.......

At any rate....I dealt with your argument on the other thread.

You are assuming he went to Whitechapel to kill.

I conclude he didnt. I conclude he was in Whitechapel for other reasons and those reasons led to situations where the fatal interaction occurred.

He may have also been in Lambeth et al at various points but when he was there, for whatever reason, teh confluence of factors did not come together and no killing occurred.


Now....if you'd be so kind....can we get back to attacking the foundations of the Hunter Ripper notion?

Not like you to take a thread off the rails SamF! Tsk tsk.....

p

[How Brown]

As an aside to the thread that Lars has set up ( Thanks Lars...its a good choice,by the way)....

I can envision the Ripper being on the hunt but not being selective in where he was "hunting"...and I could also see him choosing what he considered to be the best area to conduct his hunting on the nights in question as well...which could explain the gaps in time between Chapman & the Double Event, since his selected area(s) had no prey at the time for whatever reason. In any event,keep at it,Lars...I like your idea.:kiss:..thats for you.

[dougie]

Hi Dougie

A number of things are problematical for Jacks having just waited until someone came along.

1. I cannot imagine there was much traffic through places such as where Chapman ended up.

2. Hanging around selecting a victim simply cannot have been a good plan after the first two?

p
We might be dealing with a paranoid schizophrenic here (not me- jack:)) We dont know jack had murder in his mind when he set out on those nights. As you have said before something might have set off a chain of events in seconds. .....an unpremeditated explosion.Maybe an invasion of personal space issue, None of the sites seem a part of a LOGICAL plan.Im sure he could have found many safer (from his point of view) locations.
regards

[Sam Flynn]

Now....if you'd be so kind....can we get back to attacking the foundations of the Hunter Ripper notion?Gladly, MrP - as long as we don't get into areas that aren't strictly relevant to the topic; for instance, asking questions like "Can you give me one example where Jack displayed local knowledge?". Many people go on hunting trips to Africa without ever having visited the country before (although they do tend to use local guides when they get there, which helps), so the "local/non-local" dichotomy doesn't strictly apply to the question of the "predatory techniques" used by the Ripper. He could have employed those techniques whether he was a local boy or not.

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho SamF

The fact remains....in all the murders we have no evidence whatsoever of any kind of stalking, hunting, planning (either before the event or after it) or scheming as to locations.

All the murder scenarios are suggestive of serendipitous contacts between victim and killer.

In that case it is illogical to assume that the killer was out that night looking for someone to kill and it is possible, and possibly probable, that the interaction between killer and victim only took a turn for the worse as a result of some trigger or sequence of them.

In that case it is fundamentally flawed and completely irrelevant to be talking abouot hunting grounds in the same way it is irrelevant to describe a man walking a dog as being on his hunting ground.

p

[Sam Flynn]

All the murder scenarios are suggestive of serendipitous contacts between victim and killer.I wouldn't dispute that - no "stalker", he.In that case it is fundamentally flawed and completely irrelevant to be talking abouot hunting grounds.Not so - he had to be in the right place at the right time, at the very least. Serendipity can't help those who aren't there.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

"Hunting grounds" imply an area where someone is actively (proactively) hunting.

If someone is a in field every week doing something like going to check his hay in another field and maybe every so often he has his gun, is in the mood and a crow lands very close and he shoots him......that doesnt make that field his hunting ground.

It makes it a field on his wat to his hay field. Where sometimes something gets killed.

Perhaps he gets a little buzz out of leaving crow corpses for his neighbour farmer to pick up.

That nothing gets killed in his field does not mean that he lives in the field where things get killed. Nor does it mean that things dont get killed in his hay field by other means. Like poisoning the crows.

p

[Pilgrim]

hunting ground

n 1: a place where opportunities abound
n 2: an area in which game is hunted

~~~

The Case of Adrian Babb

Between January 1986 and March 1988, seven attacks on elderly women took place in tower blocks in south Birmingham. Women aged in their 70s and 80s, often infirm, were followed into the lifts by a stocky young man who overpowered them and took them to the top floor of the tower block, sometimes carrying them up the last two flights of stairs to the landing near the roof. There he raped them and escaped. Consistent patterns appeared to suggest the work of the same man. The offender had a limited repertoire of locations, victims and actions, which suggested a man operating in a constrained world. Canter noticed that the tower blocks were like islands surrounded by major dual carriageways.

Victims reported the attacker as black, athletic, without body odours and carrying a sports bag. After the first offence he made no attempt to disguise himself; so he had no fear that he would be recognized locally — the paradox of deep familiarity of tower blocks with the confidence in anonymity.

Source: Canter, Criminal Shadows (http://www.i-psy.com/publications/publications_book1.php) (1995).

~~~

It should be noted that the perception of structure of identity may arise in several ways. There may be little in the real object that is remarkable, yet it has gained identity and organization through long familiarity. At the other end of the scale, an object seen for the first time may have strong structure or identity solely because of vivid and striking physical features, which impose their pattern upon the observer. Contrariwise, an object seen for the first time may be identified or related neither through familiarity nor physical vividness, but because it conforms to a stereotype already constructed by the observer.

Source: Lynch, The Image of The City (http://dome.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.3/35651/KL_002014.pdf?sequence=1) (1960).

[Sam Flynn]

"Hunting grounds" imply an area where someone is actively (proactively) hunting.Clearly, this chap wasn't pottering in the back yard of Hanbury Street at past 5AM, just happened to be in Buck's Row at 3AM, or Mitre Square at half past one in the morning. So, if he didn't actively lead his victims there, he at least accompanied them to their final destinations.

That is not the action of someone idly leaving poison out to serendipitously poison a crow, neither is it the action of a stalker - but it's certainly the action of someone pursuing his victim, whichever way you look at it. He doesn't just "cut them down where they stand" - he goes after them, or leads them somewhere himself, and he does so purposely.

Furthermore, he comes pre-equipped with a razor-sharp knife. After using this weapon, he ends up with some blood-staining and rather incriminating (organic) evidence on his person, so one must assume he comes equipped with an exit-strategy as well - or, at least, he feels that he can get to ground quickly and safely.

And he does all this... on a whim?

[How Brown]

From Lars:

"A number of things are problematical for Jacks having just waited until someone came along.

Issue 1. I cannot imagine there was much traffic through places such as where Chapman ended up.
Issue 2. Hanging around selecting a victim simply cannot have been a good plan after the first two?

Alternative views to each:

1. Evidently the backyard in Hanbury Street had been frequented for kneetremblers prior to Chapman's murder. I seem to recall a reference to that very possibility/fact somewhere before...

2. That might not fly,Lars...considering the location of what and where you might consider the first murder to have occurred.

Had the first been Tabram, I for one see no issue with him traipsing the area up around the London Hospital for the August 31st murder. It had been 24 days since the Tabram murder

Had the first been Nichols, he may have been walking around the vicinity of Hanbury Street and coincidentally come across Chapman and then been taken to the backyard on Hanbury Street. I think that in this specific murder more so than any other,the victim did the steering to the location where said victim was found.



I'm glad you put this thread together Lars.

[How Brown]

Sam:

A LOT of people walked around in the East End with knives with zero kills and a lot of piss and vinegar in their systems. Look at Ludwig.

In addition...just as a sidebar Sam...isn't it possible that the Ripper had conducted sexual liasons with women before,during,and even after October...with no "trigger" which unleashed whatever was unleashed on the victims from Tabram to Eddowes?

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho SamF

this chap wasn't pottering in the back yard of Hanbury Street at past 5AM, just happened to be in Buck's Row at 3AM, or Mitre Square at half past one in the morning. So, if he didn't actively lead his victims there (still a possibility, in my view), he at least accompanied them to their final destinations.

He certainly wasn't. In fact he probably never heard of / had seen these places until he was accosted, probably as he made his way along one of the main streets. Accompanying them the short distance to their doom hardly constitutes hunting anymore than being on a walk, seeing a rabbit run in front of you and shooting constitutes hunting.

but it's certainly the action of someone pursuing his victim, whichever way you look at it.

What? Following someone, with the possible intention of having sex, after being INVITED by the female partner.....is hardly PURSUING!

I mean seriously.........! If thats "prusuing a victim" I better watch myself next time I get lucky (or unlucky) or I may end up in court for "pursuing my victim".

he comes pre-equipped with a razor-sharp knife.

Razor sharp? Bit melodramatic? At any rate......probably half the working men of the LVP carried knives daily.

Its hardly tooling up for a night of mayhem now is it? Its the LVP for Gods sake!

One would wonder if he HADN'T a knife.

Or do you want to start arguing that it was some kind of surgical instrument perhaps?

so one must assume he comes equipped with an exit-strategy as well

Which includes chaotically dumpping an incriminatory rag as well?

at least, he feels that he can get to ground quickly and safely.

This obsession with "going to ground" is getting a bit weary.

"Going to ground" is unneccessary. because if he was not seen at the corpse and was a couple iof streets away.....then he is safe.

For crimes like these......if you werent caught at the body....then you werent caught.

And as we know...he probably was neither covered in blood or crap and may not even have had any organs on him.

Indeed the more I think of it, and I have to aclknowledge your input in concreteing my notion...there was nothing planned, premeditated or thought through about these killings at all.

Hard to see them as anything other than fairly random unlucky occurrences for those involved.

NOt a bit of hunting at all. More like an unfortunate deer bumping into some pissed/pissed off redneck on his way home after the pub.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi HOw

Couldn't have said it better myself.

p

[Sam Flynn]

A LOT of people walked around in the East End with knives with zero kills and a lot of piss and vinegar in their systems. Look at Ludwig.Indeed, How - such was his profession. We must assume that most folk who walked around the East End with razor-sharp knifes didn't also come equipped with the potential to kill, therefore. I say "potential", rather than "intention", just to keep the argument open.In addition...just as a sidebar Sam...isn't it possible that the Ripper had conducted sexual liasons with women before,during,and even after October...with no "trigger" which unleashed whatever was unleashed on the victims from Tabram to Eddowes?Possibly - but then, we can't be sure that his motive was sexual, and it's certainly not axiomatic that it was.

[Sam Flynn]

This obsession with "going to ground" is getting a bit weary.Because it doesn't suit your agenda?"Going to ground" is unneccessary.Not so.because if he was not seen at the corpse and was a couple iof streets away.....then he is safe.What about the "couple-and-a-half'th" street away? The longer he's in the open, the more likely it is that he may get caught.

[Sam Flynn]

1. Come up with a reasonable argument;

2. Someone else must then come up with a barrage of scornful comments if your argument threatens their pet theory;

3. If it's your pet theory that's under threat, be sure that your barrage of scorn is as lengthy and nit-picking as possible;

4. Repeat as necessary.

[How Brown]

Sam & Lars:

Not to sound like a "fence sitter" and ruin your discussion, because I am enjoying it a lot...but I lean towards the likelihood that Nichols was not approached before she was murdered specifically for a sexual liason because of the location ...and yet in Chapman's case,the weight seems to lean towards one having been negotiated because of the location...but feel the women were both murdered by the same fellow. A sort of balancing act, but not a cop-out on my part,guys.

I'll go back and sit in the gallery and watch the action.:kiss:

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

Because it doesn't suit your agenda?

Nope. Because it is a fallacy. A fallacy perpetuating the unfounded, illogical, TV-knowledge, "profiling" myth that JtR was some kind of hunter-predator who ventured out from his lair, killed someone and then scuttled back to his hole.

There is nothing suggesting that behaviour, many other serial killers have not displayed it, its entirely a myth that only appeared towards the late 1990's as TV started wrecking people independant thought capacities and has been sustained by a number of peoples (not yours!) desire to "make something" out of their slightly unsavoury interests.

The longer he's in the open, the more likely it is that he may get caught.

Not true. If he's not seen at the body or in a position whereby he must have been the killer......then he ain't caught.

How could he be? If not seen what would they use? DNA? Blood types? Fingerprints? What exactly......?

Out of sight of the body (lets say round the corner) then he's away and free.

Even if stopped, if his knife is clean and he appears half way normal......how is he caught?

Genuinely.....I'd be grateful if you could tell me.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How

I would agree except......Polly was sick. She specifically stated she was going to get money.

One could easily, in her sickened state, just saying to him/herself "lets just do it round the corner here" because she was so sick.

Nothing like not feeling well to disrupt normal behaviour patterns or plump for the option that would not appear so attractice in normal health.

How many times have you barfed out the bedroom window after drinking lots just because you were sick and it seemed an infinitely easier option than lurching to the bathroom?

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

I dont know who this is addressed at but I'll have a crack at it:

1. Come up with a reasonable argument;


There is not yet a reasonable argument for hunter/predator. It appeared out of the ether/TV and was accepted as some kind of "fact" by many. There is no body of work supporting the notion, no evidence for it, no coherent thinking behind it and when you ask people why it must be so....they cannot answer because they don't know why they think its true.

2. Someone else must then come up with a barrage of scornful comments if your argument threatens their pet theory;

There is no argument. Scorn is directed at osmotically absorbed guff passing off as argument.

3. If it's your pet theory that's under threat, be sure that your barrage of scorn is as lengthy and nit-picking as possible;

I have no pet theory. I have the only thing supported by evidence.

4. Repeat as necessary.

Can do. Or you could break the cycle and start presenting the evidence for your hunter/predator theory and outlining the development of that theory.

And I know you won't because when you start to think it over....you will quickly realise that you don't know why you adhere to it but are certain it is right.

p

[How Brown]

I sure hope you guys "fight nice" on the thread..because you two fellers have some damned good ideas for the 98 percent of us who are paying attention.

Lars:

I would agree except......Polly was sick. She specifically stated she was going to get money.

The question is,considering the location on the pavement where she was killed...with a bruised face...is DID she get a chance to proposition anyone before she was killed? Intentions don't always work out the way we'd like.

One could easily, in her sickened state, just saying to him/herself "lets just do it round the corner here" because she was so sick.

Again,with all due respect,sor...there were places she could have led or been led to with superior cover from interlopers...but she was killed on the pavement.

Nothing like not feeling well to disrupt normal behaviour patterns or plump for the option that would not appear so attractice in normal health.

True...but on the pavement ? Even sick individuals will do their best to find the appropriate place for whatever they must do to purge themselves.

How many times have you barfed out the bedroom window after drinking lots just because you were sick and it seemed an infinitely easier option than lurching to the bathroom?

458 times...but we're talking about a punishable offense on the pavement,sir.

[Mr. Poster]

HI How

Killed on the pavement......but you do not know how far she may have gotten from an attack initiated any where else? The nearest gate.....or dark spot?

All the others were in enclosed spaces essentially. Polly may perhaps have gotten free, wriggled away or whatever before he caught up with her after the initial attack and finished her where she was found.

Of all the locations...Pollys was the one with the best options for flight of all of them.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Scorn is directed at osmotically absorbed guff passing off as argument."Osmotically absorbed guff"? You seem to suggest that I don't think these things through for myself, MrP. I'll take that as hubris, rather than malice, on your part.I have no pet theory. I have the only thing supported by evidence. I can only imagine that you're playing Devil's Advocate, then - since you seem to be giving entirely the opposite impression.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

You seem to suggest that I don't think these things through for myself, MrP.

I never underestimate you SamF. BUt in that case you should have absolutely no trouble in laying out the foundations of you case that jtR was a hunter/predator.

And I trust that you will not have to resort to diffuse concepts such as "the big picture" or "no killings outside Whitechapel".

There must be some concrete aspects that you feel support the Hunter/Predator notion along the same lines that I feel the concrete aspects I have outlined support my contention that they were more random events.

Because, and I know you are a reasonable man, I assume you DO have some concrete details of the crimes that support your contention.

In the same way that saying two signatures are different because, and repeating ad nauseum, an expert said so, is, I feel, an abdication of ones responsibility in supporting such a contention ...... I also contend that relying on terms such as "the big picture" is an abdication of responsibility and is as reprehensible as the oft slung "You just don't get it!".

p

[How Brown]

How's this ( I couldn't keep away from the thread after all...) sound?

Premise A:

The Ripper, on many occasions, several occasions...or even only a few...went out and about in the same mental state he'd have been found in on days when he didn't kill...as well as those that he did kill...carrying a weapon of course...not necessarily "seeking" or engaged in predatory behavior...but coming into contact with someone...or even some "thing"...which served as a trigger and set in motion the subsequent murders...and then returned to his digs.Lets call this Ripper the "Spur Of The Moment" Ripper. It follows Lars' thinking,if I may be so bold to assume this,more closely than any other on this thread.

Premise B:

The Ripper, on only a few occasions, went out specifically to find a female to murder...or specifically, a prostitute to murder...and a reasonably secure location according to his perceptions at the time to perform the intended, premeditated act of murder at...and then returned to his digs. Lets call this Ripper the "Man With The Plan" Ripper. It follows Sam's line of thinking,if I may be so bold to assume this,more closely than any other on this thread.

Premise C;

The Ripper, on only a few occasions, went out specifically to find a female to murder...or specifically, a prostitute to murder...and in or at whatever location that was presented or available regardless of any risks we would consider alarming. Lets call this Ripper the "By Any Means Necessary" Ripper. I can't speak for anyone else, but it is the one I lean towards, despite having great respect for the first two arguments made so far. By virtue of the locations of two murders, specifically two from within the 'canon'...that being Nichols' and Chapman's...I see enough disparity between the locations that an alternative to Sam's seminal ideas and Lars' seminal ideas might be worth considering.

I don't know how much the locations are factored into these two gentlemen's theories, but for me,they do.

Now I can go sit down and shut up.:kiss:

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho HOw

I can go with Premise A. Indeed I am compelled to as it is the only one with which the facts agree.

The only quibble I have with it is that I reckon he may have continued about his activities as opposed to returning to his digs.

At any rate, his returning would not necessarliy have been precipitated by his having killed anyone.

p

[How Brown]

Lets hear from Sammy...and if he agrees with my 'Premises' and that he agrees with Premise B... then lets get this thread steamin' !

[Currerbell]

LOL Sam, and his Ripperology game!

Ive noticed that a lot since my interest in the Ripper began, people get sooooo tetchy over stuff sometimes, it scares me...anyway, surely the point of these forums is to chat/converse/discuss all to do with the case, its pretty obvious sometimes people wont agree with one another AND things will be repeated...until the case is solved...haha whenever that will be, prob not in my lifetime...:nono:

[Nemo]

Hi all

I think the scenario (for that's what it is) that Mr Poster puts forward, that the Ripper was not a hunter type, is a very good one

But it is not the only one (as usual) and the option remains that he was a hunter type

I could go with the idea that he did not plan the encounter to a certain extent, especially as I was thinking a bit along these lines recently.My thoughts related to a modern serial killer's "trigger" of any woman who refused his advances. It has passed through my mind previous to this that all of the C5 and possibly beyond, into Tabram territory - would have been in a position where they perhaps refused the Ripper's advances - ie they said "No" to whatever he was requesting

Mary Nichols may have been drunk and ill by that time of the morning - Annie Chapman was heard to say "No" - a short time before she fell against the fence, so it probably wasn't a timid cry of "No!" when she saw the knife - Liz Stride was heard to be possibly refusing business, "Not tonight, some other night" - Eddowes was maybe still drunk and in a hurry to get somewhere after being locked up - and Mary could fit that bill - especially if the Ripper was Hutchinson, as he may well have had an encounter with Mary at 2am, but the fact that he did not have sixpence may have caused her to move on to another client.

So I could possibly see a Ripper raged by so lowly a woman who refused his advances - with other prostitutes he may well have completed the transaction

It's true that there is not much definitive evidence pointing toward him being a hunter, but that's because there is so little evidence for anything regarding his character - there is little or no evidence to say he was not such a killer

I think the "special" type of knife , the timing of the murders in the early hours, the consistent weekend/holiday timeframe, the need to premeditate the "exit plan" carrying flesh and organs and being bloodstained etc points more to a premeditated, planned, hunting killer

I think he knew what he was looking for on those particular nights, and probably others besides.

He would obviously have many nights during which he might roam the East End interacting with people and prostitutes without having or fulfilling any need to kill at that time

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Nemo

But it is not the only one (as usual) and the option remains that he was a hunter type

Indeed it does but the option also remains that the Loch Ness monster exists. Its just that there is no evidence at all for that option...

It has passed through my mind previous to this that all of the C5 and possibly beyond, into Tabram territory - would have been in a position where they perhaps refused the Ripper's advances - ie they said "No" to whatever he was requesting

Thats a fair point but the victims were absolutely desperate (except Stride possibly). I cannot think how they could have refused our man provided he didnt produce a knife before propositioning them.

there is little or no evidence to say he was not such a killer

On that we will have to disagree.

I think the "special" type of knife ,


I havent heard of that.

the need to premeditate the "exit plan" carrying flesh and organs

I see no evidence of a plan and his flight from Eddowes was hardly well planned? At any rate how could he plan anything when the whores chose the spot?

and being bloodstained etc

Its generally accpeted that there was no need for him to be bloodstained at alll.

p

[Nemo]

Hi Lars

So you think he was in the East End on a regular basis, but something "triggered" the killing mostly on weekends and holidays?

Perhaps he really did "love his work" and got really frustrated when he had to take a day off? (excuse that flippancy)


When these events occurred, he happened to be carrying an 8-10" straight bladed pointed tip knife?

If he thought he could be triggered to kill so ferociously, did he remove himself from that situation or try to avoid it?

To me he seemed to be placing himself in the position to be "triggered"

Is that not a form of pre-meditation? seeing if the victim passed some kind of test?

[Sam Flynn]

At any rate how could he plan anything when the whores chose the spot?"IF the whores chose the spot", not "WHEN", MrP. Besides, as I said yesterday, he had first to be in an area where these women could "find him", which shows at least an element of purposeful behaviour on his behalf.

[Mr. Poster]

HI SamF

Middle of the night, Ripper about, Whitechapel being Whitechapel, .....perhaps of all the skanky spots in London...whitechapel was the one where the probabilities were highest that he would be accosted.

AS to picking spots.....someone will have to explain to me how an enclosed yard over looked by a window with one exit was a spot a killer would "pick".

p

[SirRobertAnderson]

Furthermore, he comes pre-equipped with a razor-sharp knife. After using this weapon, he ends up with some blood-staining and rather incriminating (organic) evidence on his person, so one must assume he comes equipped with an exit-strategy as well - or, at least, he feels that he can get to ground quickly and safely.



I can't see how we can escape this conclusion. Let us not leave out that he pulled off these kills in a rather well defined area, despite an overwhelming police presence after the first two murders (three if we include Tabram, and the police of the time had to be thinking that way...)

The majority of present day Manhattan is obviously a grid, but Greenwich Village and the Wall Street area - the oldest areas - remind me more than a bit of Whitechapel. I'd be hard pressed to think I could get away with a brazen crime down there without knowing the lanes and alleys intimately. (I've lived in NYC almost my entire life and I still get lost in the Village.) Too many cul de sacs, too many chances of running around in a circle. Perhaps luck would shine on me one or twice, but 5 or 6 or 7 times ? I just don't see it.

And a bolthole ? Essential IMHO. I believe he took trophies, and I believe that as careful as he might be, the cleaning up necessary went well beyond what you could do at an open tap in public. (I'd also argue that he needed to know beforehand where he could cleanup quickly.) I'm not that concerned with blood per se, but the fecal matter. Again, once or twice, perhaps he could have gotten away without a major clean up. But 5+ times ?

[Nemo]

Blood sticks and stains almost as much as faeces

If he has got faeces on him, then he would most likely have blood on him

He seems to take the apron to clean off the faeces - he doesn't need it when only blood is present

I wonder why that is?

[Sam Flynn]

He seems to take the apron to clean off the faeces - he doesn't need it when only blood is present

I wonder why that is?Probably because faeces stink worse than blood and, because he'd have known that he'd left behind a corpse upon whose externalised viscera he'd smeared faecal matter, the stench would have been somewhat incriminating even if he got shot of his knife and the "trophies". Here was a man, I feel, who was desperate to clean himself quickly to avoid undue suspicion. This suggests strongly to me that he wasn't too far from his bolthole/residence when he scrubbed up (and - no - I don't necessarily mean the Victoria Home, although it's a possibility), otherwise he could have high-tailed it out of the district sooner, and washed his hands at comparative leisure. If he was that keen on the main roads, he could have swilled his hands in the Aldgate Pump, I daresay (he wasn't that far away from it after he'd left Mitre Square), or any number of horse-troughs in the area... but he seems to have headed directly to Goulston Street.

[SirRobertAnderson]

He seems to take the apron to clean off the faeces - he doesn't need it when only blood is present

I wonder why that is?

Hey Nemo - I wouldn't assume that he had fecal matter on him only in the Eddowes case. Anytime he went into the viscera in the dark, there'd be a real good chance he'd get soiled.

(BTW, I have always wondered if Jack contracted septicemia after the Eddowes attack. )

[Nemo]

Hi Sam/Robert

It doesn't follow that because he was soiled with faeces that his bolthole was nearby

What I was trying to say in a roundabout way was that it appears that bloodstaining did not bother him - no need to clean himself as the blood would either not be spotted (hands in pocket type of thing ) or that the blood stains would not stand out due to his occupation perhaps

He needed to clean faeces off himself, yes - but why was he (possibly) not worried about the blood?

Did he attack without any pre-prepared cleaning kit? - not even a rag on his person?

[Sam Flynn]

Hey Nemo - I wouldn't assume that he had fecal matter on him only in the Eddowes case. Anytime he went into the viscera in the dark, there'd be a real good chance he'd get soiled.... but only if he severed the descending colon, Robert, which he did in the case of Eddowes. He may also have done so with Annie Chapman, but in better lighting conditions and - it has to be said - not to the extent where he removed an entire section of the lower colon and laid it out on the ground.

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't follow that because he was soiled with faeces that his bolthole was nearbyWhat if he knows he's going to meet someone, like a lodging-house attendant... or his tyrannical and strictly-religious mum (LOL!)? What if he's about to share a bunk with some other men who might notice the stink, and report it as something unusual to the police when they come knocking the next day ("Wossname come in at ten-past-two, stinkin' of crap")? What if he's scared that he might bump into a copper with an average sense of smell?

If his bolthole/residence was well away from the crime scene, he could have headed in its direction knowing full well that all the police "action" was behind him, and that his kacky hands could wait until the next fountain or horse-trough came into view.

As I say, this strikes me as the actions of a man who felt compelled to remove the stinky stuff from his hands as soon as possible. A man who knew he wouldn't be in anyone's company for quite a while wouldn't have felt such urgency - and he certainly wouldn't have had any reason to head straight into Spitalfields to clean up... unless that was where he needed to go.

Apologies for being off-topic, but it's an important clue, I feel.

[How Brown]

You know the average guy can't avoid getting paint on his fingers even when he paints little objects like airplanes and figurines and shit... so just imagine how funky the Ripper's hands were as well as what he smelled like.:tape: I know this has been thought of millions of years ago by everyone on the thread..but its one of those thoughts that comes creepin' back on you.

[How Brown]

As I say, this strikes me as the actions of a man who felt compelled to remove the stinky stuff from his hands as soon as possible.-Sammy

At least after the Chapman murder,Sam...I agree. No such need after the Tabram (assuming she was a victim for a moment) or even Nichols...unless he attempted to get his hands inside her and we don't know.

Its Hanbury Street where he first gets funked up....then Mitre Square. Just two really...wouldn't you agree?

[SirRobertAnderson]

As I say, this strikes me as the actions of a man who felt compelled to remove the stinky stuff from his hands as soon as possible.....

Apologies for being off-topic, but it's an important clue, I feel.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but damned if I know what it means.

Here's an idea - what if Jack was just some spoiled brat bent on learning what made these toys work ? You know the way real kids take apart toys and can't get them back together again ?

What if each murder was in some bizarre fashion a dissection lesson from Hell ? And with Eddowes he finally got some serious shit on his hands, and he flipped out over it as it was unexpected ? So he takes some risks he doesn't normally: not heading straight home but pausing long enough to write the GSG.

I'm probably doing a piss poor job of explaining my idea; hopefully you catch my drift. It sorta fits with your notion that these victims might not have been sexualized in his eyes. (At least I think that's something you've said...)

[Nemo]

Sorry Sam - I must be a bit stupid because I can't see what you are getting at regarding the bolthole

Wherever the bolthole was - after each murder he headed there - his home in some fashion

When he gets faeces on him, he is compelled to (probably) stand in a doorway cleaning his hands before he gets back home

Either he is thinking he will be ID'd by the smell as he goes along the street, or, as you say, there is someone back at the bolthole who would notice

My point was that possibly the blood was OK and not enough to raise suspicion - faeces no

The apron piece was not wet as far as I remember - you would think that he would have headed for the nearest place with water - the Aldgate pump etc if he was that concerned about it - and if he was around for 40mins or so you would think that he would be able to wash somewhere

It may be a slight indication that he hurried from the square, wiped his hands of most of the offending matter, and continued on his way to wash somewhere else - making it unlikely that he penned the GSG in my opinion

That would imply that PC Long missed the apron first time around

If his bolthole was very close by with no person there to witness his comings and goings, then he would have headed there and cleaned up, probably only dumping the apron so as not to have it found during a police search - which would account for the "lost" 40mins or so -

I think it more likely that the GSG was written within such a scenario, rather than the hurried clean up operation on the street

..and PC Long is in the clear - he did not miss it first time around

Either way I think it is a big clue yes

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Sir BOb

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn
Furthermore, he comes pre-equipped with a razor-sharp knife. After using this weapon, he ends up with some blood-staining and rather incriminating (organic) evidence on his person, so one must assume he comes equipped with an exit-strategy as well - or, at least, he feels that he can get to ground quickly and safely.

Originally Posted by Sir Bob
I can't see how we can escape this conclusion. Let us not leave out that he pulled off these kills in a rather well defined area, despite an overwhelming police presence after the first two murders (three if we include Tabram, and the police of the time had to be thinking that way...)

I'm sorry and with all due respect but........whaaaat?

Coming preequipped with his knofe perchance....but preequipped for gutting fish, peeling apples, cutting rope...whatever. half the men had knives and in the days of sharpening your own...they were hardly likely to sharpen them to a dull bluntness now were they? Saying he came prearmed with his knife and deciding that means he was hunting something is laughable.

AS to the locations.

Lets be clear....all th ekillings occurred within spitting distance of a main thoroughfare. All out wizard of geography had to do was remember the path from the street where he met th ewhores to the place of ultimate demise.

Its hardly brian surgery or the Exploration of Africa.

As to police presence......what police presence? Ye reckon they covered every street corner all the time?

Once he was back on the street....he was home free.

Probably because faeces stink worse than blood and, because he'd have known that he'd left behind a corpse upon whose externalised viscera he'd smeared faecal matter, the stench would have been somewhat incriminating even if he got shot of his knife and the "trophies".

This is totally misleading. First because not all shite stinks...the stuff high up in the intestines doesnt reek at all.

Second...the LVP was not the Brut-alised, Old Spiced fragrant miasma we have today. It stank. Everyone in it stank. And the stink produced by perhaps less than a gram of probably non-stinking shite was hardly going to add to the stink now was it?

All he needed to do was get his hands clean-ish, assuming he even cared and didnt just stick them in his pockets for most of the killings.

There are then some posts meandering about this and that. All of them very speculative and debating how focussed he was on getting the "stinky" stuff of his hands even though no one has shown it was on his hands and seeing as the rag was not saturated in the stuff one must wonder how dirty he was at any rate.....


Ther eis no reason in the wide world to assume that our man was covered in anything or stank of anything.

And I suggest everyone stops viewing/sniffing the LVP with their 20th century noses and instead takes a wander down to their local living-alone-for 40-years-and hasnt-washed-in-thirty council hose pensioner and get a whiff of what he stinks like. Now if you lot think a gram of two of possible unsmelly crap is going to be discernible above that pong.......then you are seriously mistaken.



There is no evidence of him removing anything after 4 of the killings. The only killing there is evidence for has one slightly soiled rag that he may have used to clean his knife...not his hands.

But its encouraging to notice that in the spirit of black bags, cloaks and hunting rippers, the complete lack of evidence can be turned into:


this strikes me as the actions of a man who felt compelled to remove the stinky stuff from his hands as soon as possible.....

Bizarre. 4 out of 5 killings present no evidence of him giving a tuppenny damn. One killing has potential evidence for him having cleaned his knife or wrapped up an organ .... and this transmogrifies into evidence of a man "compelled" to get something off his hands.

And why would he? Unless he was caught on the spot up to his elbows in someone......he was free as a bird.

p

[Mr. Poster]

And in the interest of clarity...here is the map from Casebook. Apart from Goulston St., can someone please explain to me how these sites required some kind or arcane local knowledge to get away from?

Seeing as they are ALL within spitting distance of the biggest arteries in the area? Its not exactly down in the deepest bowels of Whitechapel now is it?

p

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Image2.jpg

[Nemo]

...but that's where the prostitutes would be wouldn't it?

Especially at the weekend or holiday

They would be just off the main street where the crowds were

Even if he lived in the area all his life, when seeking a victim he would still go to where he could find them - on or near the main streets where the action is - which would produce the same locations as a man from outside the area looking for prostitutes on the main routes

[Sam Flynn]

Even if he lived in the area all his life, when seeking a victim he would still go to where he could find them - on or near the main streets where the action is - which would produce the same locations as a man from outside the area looking for prostitutes on the main routesExcept there was no reason for a man outside the area not to look for prostitutes - um - outside the area. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Whitechapel did not have a monopoly on prostitution. Far from it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again - we aren't looking at "prostitutes" in the conventional sense, but casual streetwalkers and drunks, another area in which Whitechapel did not have a monopoly.

In addition, it's particularly noticeable that ALL the "ripped" victims were found to the NORTH of Aldgate/Whitechapel Road/High St. Now, it's not as if there weren't prostitutes, casual streetwalkers and drunks to the south of that line (quite the contrary), but we find hardly any victims there at all. An outsider simply would not have felt constrained to stay in the north of the district, when there were potential targets elsewhere.

[Sam Flynn]

Seeing as they are ALL within spitting distance of the biggest arteries in the area? Its not exactly down in the deepest bowels of Whitechapel now is it?
Can you point out any part of the "bowels of Whitechapel" that wasn't within spitting distance of the biggest arteries in the area, MrP?

[Nemo]

I know you think there is nothing to "attract" an outsider to the area Sam - but that would probably only apply to a person who had no other links to the area

It harks back to Mr Poster's post where the attraction could be a favourite pub, maybe he has family there, workplace etc

The locations being North of Whitechapel Rd only indicate to me that if/when he was travelling up the road, he did so on the Northern pavement/sidewalk

I'm not familiar with the area - but wouldn't the shops/pubs/theatres etc be on the sunny side of the street?

[Mr. Poster]

hi SamF

Except there was no reason for a man outside the area not to look for prostitutes - um - outside the area.

I think you might be getting confussed SamF.....or have I misread?

At any rate........ no reason for someone not-hunting prostitutes to hunt them anywhere else.

Now, it's not as if there weren't prostitutes, casual streetwalkers and drunks to the south of that line (quite the contrary), but we find hardly any victims there at all. An outsider simply would not have felt constrained to stay in the north of the district, when there were potential targets elsewhere.

TV inspired preassumption of hunting. A man employed or otherwise engaged in the area you mention could easily have found that it was in this area he was at a higher probability of being accosted by desperate whores. At any rate...your "Line" is completely imaginary. As far as you know...the outsider might have been staying west or east or south.....one cannot say that he stayed anywhere based on you drawing an imaginary line. Now that IS the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

we aren't looking at "prostitutes" in the conventional sense, but casual streetwalkers and drunks, another area in which Whitechapel did not have a monopoly.

Perhaps whitechapel was host to the most desperate ones? The ones most likely to persistently harrass people. At any rate....you are assuming that our man, presuming that he didnt come from the area, would walk through whore infested areas of more or less equal to Whitechapel density/character going from his house or whatever to his workplace or whatever. Unless Whitechapel was perfectly ringed in equal density whoring areas.....that argument is completely and utterly flawed.

At any rate it is of no matter. A man working/visiting/passing through whitechapel for any of a 100 reasons may find himself exposed to more prostitutes or more persistent prostitutes than at any other point on his possible route.


Can you point out any part of the "bowels of Whitechapel" that wasn't within spitting distance of the biggest arteries in the area, MrP

Hmmmm......if he had killed somone at any of the points indicated...I would "hands up" and say...OK he knew the area and if he didnt ...he had a stroke of luck finding his way back to the main roads.

But he didnt, did he? No....kept within easy reach of the biggest roads where he could easily get out of the area and had any one of 1000's valid reasons to be that didnt include killing anyone.

Or does someone want to tell me that if he was hunting he wouldnt have found whores down in those spots or that they wouldnt have provided much more convenient spots than beside main roads, in open squares and boxed in under the windows of residences with no way of escape?

Indeed it seems he killed very close to or within easy reach of the better areas of whitechapel. Suggesting a man who wasnt entirely comfortable with pushing deeper into the more skuzzy areas. All fairly consistent with a man passing through or working there as opposed to be intrinsically familiar with the area.

I apologise...I am/was trying to post two images but the server was down. These images rest on my home machine (I is a workp) and I will post them once I get home.

[dougie]

Except there was no reason for a man outside the area not to look for prostitutes - um - outside the area. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Whitechapel did not have a monopoly on prostitution. Far from it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again - we aren't looking at "prostitutes" in the conventional sense, but casual streetwalkers and drunks, another area in which Whitechapel did not have a monopoly.

of the district, when there were potential targets elsewhere.
Its not what "we are looking for" that is important surely...its what Jack was looking for. The argument why would Jack not look elsewhere for prostitutes,if he didnt live locally? seems a bit shallow.not even sure it makes much sense(my fonts have gone crazy by the way).......There were "potential targets" EVERYWHERE.

[Sam Flynn]

Its not what "we are looking for" that is important surely...its what Jack was looking for.I said "what we're looking at", Dougie - namely, the social/demographic factors at play in London at the time - not what Jack was looking for. God only knows what that was.The argument why would Jack not look elsewhere for prostitutes,if he didnt live locally? seems a bit shallowIt's not shallow at all, given that waifs, strays and prostitutes were to be found elsewhere - even elsewhere within the East End. If he lived elsewhere, why not pick on the nearest population of waifs, strays, etc?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

given that waifs, strays and prostitutes were to be found elsewhere - even elsewhere within the East End.

That cannot be denied. Why do you suppose then that he only killed in the more respectable areas, virtually under the noses of the betetr off residents, just off the main arteries as opposed to just going a bit deeper in where the lights were less bright, the curtains less twitchy, the gloom a bit gloomier and the liklihood of a body being discovered whilst still warm and dripping was a damn sight less than when killing them just off the main street?

p

[Nemo]

I've often wondered if an anti-semitic Ripper attacked women whom he despised for fraternising with the Jews

Was the East End the only, or the main, Jewish/immigrant ghetto at the time?

[Sam Flynn]

Why do you suppose then that he only killed in the more respectable areas, virtually under the noses of the betetr off residents, just off the main arteries...... you tell me, MrP. Aren't you the one who believes that it was the victims who led the killer, and not vice-versa? Perhaps they thought they'd be able to charge more for "connexion" in a respectable street (if such streets they were, which I doubt).

PS: Did you answer my recent question, posted pre-crash, as to whether you could point out a spot in Spitalfields that wasn't close to the main arterial roads?

[How Brown]

I've often wondered if an anti-semitic Ripper attacked women whom he despised for fraternising with the Jews--Nemo The Threadmaker

Sounds like a thread is in order,Nemo:kiss:

[Nemo]

lol Howard

- off topic again more like...

apologies Sam and Mr P

Just wondering if the lowest of the low prostitutes would be fraternising with the Jews - Whereas others across London may not have done

This type of interaction, in the main, may have occurred in Whitechapel

[Sam Flynn]

Did you answer my recent question, posted pre-crash, as to whether you could point out a spot in Spitalfields that wasn't close to the main arterial roads?Sorry, MrP - I note that you had answered, albeit unsatisfactorily. Quite understandable, really, given that it'd be tricky to justify such a viewpoint in terms of an area so small that one was never really that far from a "main" road. Come to think of it, though, he didn't consistently kill his victims in locations that were "just off" the main arterial roads anyway - I mean, the back-yard of Hanbury Street and Room 13 Miller's Court weren't exactly public thoroughfares.

[Nemo]

I disagree there Sam (a bit)

Wasn't Hanbury St quite a main approach to the market?

..and Millers Court was only a few yards away from Commercial St

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

Out of interest.....which drugs exactly must one be taking to assume that it is equally as difficult to find ones way back to the main street from the red dots as it is from the murder locations? Given the fact that back streets are probably ill lit, darker, smellier etc?

Im getting worried about you SamF....

p



http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Image2-2.jpg

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

ou tell me, MrP. Aren't you the one who believes that it was the victims who led the killer, and not vice-versa? Perhaps they thought they'd be able to charge more for "connexion" in a respectable street (if such streets they were, which I doubt).

Yes......they led him there as he wasnt hunting them and didnt know the are in detail so why would they end up anywhere else?

And of course a local, hunting killer who knew the area would hardly be gormless enough to 1) kill women under the windows of local residents, or 2) find himself caged in a yard with one exit when the dark delights of deeper whitechapel offer equally fruitful hunting grounds with better non-detection opportunities.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Nemo,I disagree there Sam (a bit)

Wasn't Hanbury St quite a main approach to the market?

..and Millers Court was only a few yards away from Commercial St
... but they were both enclosed locations, rather than open thoroughfares, which was really the point I was making. In an area where it wasn't unheard of for outsiders to be "rolled" by bullies after accompanying loose women into such locations, this chap must have been fairly sure of his ground.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes......they led him there as he wasnt hunting themThose aren't mutually exclusive conditions, MrP. As I've said before, the killer had to be "there or thereabouts" before serendipity sent a victim his way, therefore even if it's true that the women "led" him to a given spot it neither means that he wasn't "hunting", nor that he was a stranger to the area.and [he] didnt know the area in detailWhat stopped him from finding such "tour-guides" in other unfamiliar areas about town?

[Pilgrim]

..... (http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=62438&postcount=151)

[Sam Flynn]

And of course a local, hunting killer who knew the area would hardly be gormless enough to 1) kill women under the windows of local residents, or 2) find himself caged in a yard with one exitI thought this deserved a separate response, namely " .... "

Speechless, MrP.

[Mr. Poster]

What stopped him from finding such "tour-guides" in other unfamiliar areas about town?

Eeeehhhh....because first he had to wander down the confuisng alleys and back street sto find his guide, then compound his problem by following them in ever gloomier surroundings and after killing them....even if he could retrace his steps to where he met his guide, he was back to a spot which he had come to by wandering through unfamiliar streets!

Completely illogical!

Plus....I don't think he was hunting. So why in the name of God would our non hunting non-local wander down the mean streets in the first place?

Unlike the main thoroughfares which were respectable and middle class, upon which he had many legitimate reason to be walking and which he never ventured very far from at all.

No matter how you spin it.......our ripper, who is apparently attached like a moth to the brighter streets, is hardly displayed the behyaviour that would be entirely reasonable for a local hunting ripper.

Its all part of the fallacy.....the misty back streets, deserted alleys, labyrinthine stinking passageways, vansihing silently in the dripping gloom etc etc.

Pity people don,t admit that our man never ventured far from the decidedly middle class thoroughfares of the area at all.

Not as romantic I suppose.

And not fitting in with their cherished "whore hunting" image which facilitates the endless and faux expert musings on what drives such a hunter.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Eeeehhhh....because first he had to wander down the confuisng alleys and back street sto find his guide, then compound his problem by following them in ever gloomier surroundings and after killing them....even if he could retrace his steps to where he met his guide, he was back to a spot which he had come to by wandering through unfamiliar streets!

Completely illogical!Yes, you are.Plus....I don't think he was hunting. So why in the name of God would our non hunting non-local wander down the mean streets in the first place?Whether he was hunting or not, that's a question you should consider more seriously. Why in Hell's name was he there?

[Mr. Poster]

Nice post for once Pilgrim!

I thought this deserved a separate response, namely " .... "

Speechless, MrP.

So SamF......you hold to the opinion that our nefarious cunning local hunter thought it was a bit of a hoot to kill in places where he stood high chance of detection and no chance of escape?

I presume you are speechless in the face of your own illogicality SamF!

p

[Sam Flynn]

Pity people don,t admit that our man never ventured far from the decidedly middle class thoroughfares of the area at all.Christ almighty! Are you real or what?

[Nemo]

Those aren't mutually exclusive conditions, MrP. As I've said before, the killer had to be "there or thereabouts" before serendipity sent a victim his way, therefore even if it's true that the women "led" him to a given spot it neither means that he wasn't "hunting", nor that he was a stranger to the area.What stopped him from finding such "tour-guides" in other unfamiliar areas about town?

I agree with that in part Sam

I can still see the killer interacting with other prostitutes and not killing, his victims leading him to a spot he deemed fit for purpose

Yes, it may seem to us that they were bad spots to kill as the threat of capture existed - but he wasn't caught or even really seen was he?

Maybe he knew something we don't - I think it is the speed at which he worked

He did not need long to do his work - a matter of a few minutes in my opinion, and he may have liked the thrill of killing in these circumstances

What he was thinking as Annie led him through a doorway? - it definitely raising his chances of being seen/turfed out/captured/robbed - unless he also was familiar with that spot

With Kelly he could have arrived after she went to bed so that does not lend itself well to the "being led to the spot" scenario

[Mr. Poster]

Why in Hell's name was he there?

1. work

2. girlfriend

3. gambling

4. drugs

5. child prostitution

6. thievery

7. fast food

8. favourite pub

9. visiting family

10. begging from brother/son/daughter (same reason some of our victims wandered)

11. a constitutional walk

12. trying to convert the locals to Judaism

13. morbid curiosity

14. occassionally slept there

15. artist looking for his muse.

16. same reason as Sickert

17. same reason as Druitt

18. same reason as Jack London

19. same reason as Barnardo.

20. and last but not least....the same reasons as the squillions of other non locals who occassionally found themselves down there.

p

[dougie]

I said "what we're looking at", Dougie - namely, even elsewhere within the East End. If he lived elsewhere, why not pick on the nearest population of waifs, strays, etc?

Its called "shi****g in your own nest"

[Mr. Poster]

HI SamF

Me: Pity people don,t admit that our man never ventured far from the decidedly middle class thoroughfares of the area at all.

SamF: Christ almighty! Are you real or what?

Seems I am actually. You should start brushing up.....

p

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Image3.jpg

[Nemo]

I think it is a major point that the ripper chose to commit horrific crimes pretty much on the street, with people all around, intentionally terrorising the neighbourhood

Is this more likely to occur with a stranger to that area he was attacking?

Especially if the killer was a local - he must surely have been able to find victims in less dangerous spots?

Why did he choose to kill so openly when many homeless women could be found across the area in various nooks and crannys?

[Mr. Poster]

intentionally terrorising the neighbourhood

Bit of a jump there Nemo!

Especially if the killer was a local - he must surely have been able to find victims in less dangerous spots?

One would surely think so.

p

[Sam Flynn]

You should start brushing up.....No - you should, MrP. Booth's colour-codes he used were comparative ratings calibrated on a baseline taken in some of the more squalid parts of the East End to begin with. Because of that, Booth's map represents a somewhat blunt instrument, except inasmuch it could be used to gauge the relative status of East End streets, against others of a similar nature in the same area. If he'd set out to map the range of economic conditions in the whole of London to begin with, we'd have a more accurate map - or at least one with finer gradations.

Your use of "decidedly middle-class areas" to describe the murder locations therefore gives entirely the wrong impression - not only were the "middle classes" of Spitalfields somewhat handicapped on the social scale, but the properties thus marked on Booth's map were often commercial premises, such as filthy pubs like the Britannia, or non-residential premises such as various shops and chandleries who catered for the local poor.

[Nemo]

It is a bit of a jump Mr P

..but I think there is a form of arrangement of the bodies and certainly by the time of the Mitre Square killing, he must have been aware of the terror prevalent in the area

However, he decides to kill again in a spot where potential captors are all around and grotesquely displays the body of his victim on the pavement

Maybe he could not control himself - but if he made any sort of decision during this kill especially, I would describe that as intentionally terrorising the neighbourhood

[SirRobertAnderson]

I think it is a major point that the ripper chose to commit horrific crimes pretty much on the street, with people all around, intentionally terrorising the neighbourhood


Well, there was a school of thought at the Yard that these crimes were the deeds of the Fenians or their ilk, and that it was an actual terrorist attack aimed at showing the poor that the police could not / would not protect them.

And if that turns out to be a "found" memory in my increasingly delusional state of mind, I am pretty sure that one of the newspaper guys with a socialist bent chimed in from time to time with thoughts along that line.

[Mr. Poster]

No - you should, MrP. Booth's colour-codes ......who catered for the local poor.

No offence SamF....but my point remains valid within the context of a "local".

Why would a local do all his killing virtually in the light from the windows of the Whitechapel middle class?

When as a local and a "hunter" he would undoubtedly know the back streets offered equal killing opportunities and a much better chance of non-detection.

You persisitently avoid these questions for some reason.

It is painfully obvious that the killer was not straying far from the better parts of whitechapel.

As to Booth....I question your interpretation. The upper end of his scale is "wealthy" whihc I assume no one would call anyone in Whitechapel.

It would be nice if you could explain why he goes from Wealthy at one end of his scale to "semi criminal" at the other and deviates in the middle to some kind of Whitechapel definition of middle class.

It is illogical and it strikes me as an interpretation that one chooses to pick to serve ones argument rather than the painfully obvious, indeed only, logical interpretation...ie that middle class meant middle class in teh same way that "wealthy" undoubtedly meant "wealthy".

I may start another thread.....

p

[Mr. Poster]

hi Nemo

However, he decides to kill again in a spot where potential captors are all around and grotesquely displays the body of his victim on the pavement

I disagree there....the bodies lay as they fell. I dont see any evidence of arranging.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Why would a local do all his killing virtually in the light from the windows of the Whitechapel middle class?The likes of cats' meat purveyors, slaughtermen and packing-case makers, you mean? And you've accused ME of "weasel logic" in the past.

That does it. Back on "Ignore" for the umpteenth, and I hope final, time.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

As I thought....Booths designations DO NOT follow some kind of Whitechapel specific key. Middle class is middle class.

Booths designation of the red category is as follows:

"Lower middle class. Shopkeepers and small employers, clerks and subordinate professional men. A hardworking sober, energetic class." see Charles Booth. Life and Labour of the People in London Volume 1 (London: Macmillan, 1902) pp.33-62

Later interpretations (see picture) denote the red as "Lower middle class - Well-to-do middle class. see: Rosemary O'Day and David Englander. Mr Charles Booth's Inquiry: Life and Labour of the People in London Reconsidered (London: Hambledon Press, 1993) p.47

I refuse to accept some kind of revisionist view of what middle class was solely to facilitate preconceived notions about our hunting ripper.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

The likes of cats' meat purveyors, slaughtermen and packing-case makers, you mean?

Ah no....I like to use Booths own words: "Lower middle class. Shopkeepers and small employers, clerks and subordinate professional men. A hardworking sober, energetic class."

What sort of professional man would a cats meat purveyor be subordinate to ?
p

[Mr. Poster]

hi samF

Back on "Ignore" for the umpteenth, and I hope final, time.

Convenient way out of having to elaborate upon why you know better about what the colours mean than....lets see......the author himself?

p

[SirRobertAnderson]

HI SamF

Seems I am actually. You should start brushing up.....

p

Interesting map, Mr. P .

I was poking around the bowels of the Net and came upon this article, which also contains the Booth Map.

It's worth a read. I think it will contain elements that either side of this debate can use, whether one wants to portray the area as a labyrinth or having some well laid out streets of relative affluence. (As an aside, I think it does add ammo to my suggestion on another thread that the Kelly murder was risky as all hell, but that's another issue.)

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4844/1/4844.pdf

This is a pre‐publication version of Mapping the East End ‘Labyrinth’ – a book chapter to be published in ‘Jack the Ripper and the East End Labyrinth’, Museum of London and Random House (2008, forthcoming)
Dr Laura Vaughan
Senior Lecturer in Urban and Suburban Settlement Patterns

[SirRobertAnderson]

"It is notable, on the one hand, that Dorset Street is coloured in the middle‐to‐high tones of the scale, indicating relatively high levels of accessibility and indeed the street itself was only a few steps off Commercial Street, which was one of the main streets in the district. But the court itself was more segregated, with a lower level of accessibility. This is typical of the street layout of the time, with a juxtaposition of segregated back alleys a few turnings away from the local main street. Looking at the map, it is evident how the spatial structure of the area created the possibility for busy and quiet streets to be located within close proximity to each other.12 The location of the murder site quite close to Commercial Street is not surprising, bearing in mind that the perpetrator probably met his victims on relatively busy streets. On the other hand, in order to carry out the murder, he needed the relative quiet of the back alleys of the area, and, in this case, Mary Jane Kelly’s single room lodging in Miller’s Court. It is striking to note that if we look at the location of the other murder sites, a similar spatial structure is revealed, with the streets typically being in the medium to low colour range, but not completely segregated, as might have been envisaged."

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Sir Robert.Laura Vaughan: "This is typical of the street layout of the time, with a juxtaposition of segregated back alleys a few turnings away from the local main street."... "typical of the street layout", which would tend to erode the perceived significance of the location of each of the bodies - at least in terms of supporting the concept of an outsider who, although reckless enough to perform alfresco hysterectomies, was somehow wary of wandering too far away from the main streets because he was unfamiliar with the area.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SirBOb

Many thanks for that.....although I fear that it will just throw fuel on the fire. A quick scan however appears, as I suspected, to support my contention that 1) whitechapel was not the complete pit it is painted as by many ripperologists, and 2) our man was staying very close to areas that a local hunter would hardly have viewed as convenient.

Of course why would our non-local non-hunter venture into " the existing “almost endless intricacy of courts and yards crossing each other... like a rabbit warren”

A place where a non-local would very easily get lost whilst recognising that what better place to kill someone if one was hunting whores.

I like this quote to:

In contrast with the dark, dirty back alley where Mary Jane Kelly’s body was found, Commercial Street is where on a Saturday night you might find people on their way to the numerous pubs in the vicinity or promenading Jewish couples on their way to the local Yiddish theatres.

Now why dont people like this author get asked to contribute to Ripperologist for example? Or maybe she has.

p

[Nemo]

Wouldn't a street full of lodging houses be categorised as "middle class" under those criteria - ie the lodging house itself is a commercial premises

...but the dwellers in the lodging houses would certainly be of the lower classes?

[Sam Flynn]

Wouldn't a street full of lodging houses be categorised as "middle class" under those criteriaNot really, Nemo. The survey was of the majority of residents who lived in those streets, not the buildings themselves. The commercial properties I gave as examples (pubs, shops) were premises where, by virtue of the fact that the residents didn't live six to a room and brought in a handful of shillings a week, were classified "middle-class" in the context of Booth's Map of London Poverty (the clue's in the name). They weren't "middle-class" by Knightsbridge or Belgravia standards, nor by any modern definition of that term - not by a long chalk.

[Nemo]

Thanks Sam

[SirRobertAnderson]

Thanks Sir Robert.... "typical of the street layout", which would tend to erode the perceived significance of the location of each of the bodies - at least in terms of supporting the concept of an outsider who, although reckless enough to perform alfresco hysterectomies, was somehow wary of wandering too far away from the main streets because he was unfamiliar with the area.

It's a good article providing a lot of food for thought.

On the surface, I certainly can see how it tends to minimize the need for local knowledge. On the other hand - and in this case there's always another hand - you'd have to believe that Jack would then escape by going back to the main streets. Which, of course, is where the maximum police presence would have been.

After the first two or three killings (I include Tabram, which the police at the time would have) I think evading the police dragnet would have involved more back alley diversions. He had to clean up at least a bit before promenading on the more trafficked and better lit main drags.

I also don't see this as clearing up the "hunter" scenario either. The prostitutes solicited on the main streets because that's where the customers where, and Jack "hunted" there because that's where the prey was.

I dunno.

[Mr. Poster]

HI Nemo

YOu are being most woefully mislead methinks.

The survey was of the majority of residents who lived in those streets, not the buildings themselves. The commercial properties I gave as examples (pubs, shops) were premises where, by virtue of the fact that the residents didn't live six to a room and brought in a handful of shillings a week, were classified "middle-class"

WE know exactly how much earnings that Booth had used in his classification:

D Small regular earnings. poor, regular earnings. Factory, dock, and warehouse labourers, carmen, messengers and porters. Of the whole section none can be said to rise above poverty, nor are many to be classed as very poor. As a general rule they have a hard struggle to make ends meet, but they are, as a body, decent steady men, paying their way and bringing up their children respectably.

E Regular standard earnings, 22s to 30s per week for regular work, fairly comfortable. As a rule the wives do not work, but the children do: the boys commonly following the father, the girls taking local trades or going out to service.

F Higher class labour and the best paid of the artisans. Earnings exceed 30s per week. Foremen are included, city warehousemen of the better class and first hand lightermen; they are usually paid for responsibility and are men of good character and much intelligence.

G Lower middle class. Shopkeepers and small employers, clerks and subordinate professional men. A hardworking sober, energetic class.

The relevant class G (red) was earning, based on his progression, more than 40 s per week, the wives and children of the families being so well off as to not have to work.

I assume that forty shillings and above constitutes more than a handful.

Contrast that if you will with the scarabbling for pennies of the really poor down there.


On the other hand - and in this case there's always another hand - you'd have to believe that Jack would then escape by going back to the main streets. Which, of course, is where the maximum police presence would have been.

Hi Sir Bob

Whether or not the maximum presence was on the main streets.....if one wasnt covered in crap and blood, as he presumably wasnt, then th emain streets were quite safe for our man as unless he was spotted in a position where he was with a body or in undeniably having been with a body....he was home free.

One had a MUCH better chance of fobbing off a policeman by being one the main streets where there were legitimate reasons to be as opposed to be seen skulking furtively round the back alleys where one would have a much harder time explaining what one was doing. Especially if one wasnt a member of the indigent working class.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Interestingly enough, I was curious as to what life was like for one of these middle class Whitechapellians who were earning more than 2 pounds (40 shillings) a week.

So wanting to get an idea of purchasing power, I consulted some documents.

To have the same purchasing power in 1998 as one would have with 2 quid in 1888....

From table 1 of Twitter, R, "Inflation: the Value of the Pound 1750-1998", RESEARCH PAPER 99/20 23 FEBRUARY 1999, House of Commons, the price index for 1850 was 8.5 and the index for 1998 was 592.3. In 1998 the average price level was some 69.7 times (592.3÷8.5) the 1888 level. Thus, to have the same purchasing power as 2 pounds in 1888 one would have needed some 140 pounds.

As we know that Booth was stating his G class earned in excess of that.....we know that people living in the red areas were earning the equivalent or more than 140 pounds a week.

Which, given the lower requirements of the people then....was not to be sniffed at. Its well over 100 Victorian pounds a year.

And I dont think I need to write reams demonstrating the fact that in excess of 100 pounds a year was not what the average cats meat man or fish gutter was earning.

p

[Nemo]

On a minor point, I have seen evidence that the cat's meat business was very lucrative

Also, market porters could earn £3 per week (Paley)

[Sam Flynn]

On a minor point, I have seen evidence that the cat's meat business was very lucrativeComparatively, perhaps - but compared to precisely what, I'm not sure! Don't forget that the cat's-meat seller in question lived in one room - not single occupancy either - in which she prepared, and from which she sold, her wares.Also, market porters could earn £3 per week (Paley)I wouldn't take Paley's opinion on this point - he has a theory to sell, which required his suspect (Barnett) to have had a major fall from grace in order to make it work. Porters might have worked their nuts off in overtime to earn that sort of money once in a blue moon, but the reality was much harsher - with even the better paid barely earning £1 a week.

There was an extensive survey of earnings taken in the East End in September 1887. It gives the average wages (and rent) of people in the very area, and at almost the very time, we're interested in:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/wage-survey.jpg

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/occ.jpg

[Mr. Poster]

By Gum!

That was an interesting table from SamF!

Looks like Booth was right on the money when he described "middle class" as earning in excess of 40 s a week. Which is quite a bit more than these semi professional/skilled dudes.


Then again....it quite nicely reflects the pictures we often see of Whitechapel mainstreet etc where there is evidence of bustling commerce and lots of people. An environment one never sees in association where abject poverty rules supreme.

You dont see too many shop awnings and taxi cabs in truly poor areas such as the slums of South Africa or the more run down parts of Moscow or Manila.

p

[Nemo]

Thanks for that Sam

Mostly male trades there

The domestic servant was earning quite a lot compared to some of the skilled trades

Looks like the average weekly wage was 20-30 shillings

The rent is a big outgoing, so saving on this would be preferable to most

I came across a woman with a Cat's meat shop and money lending business who died in 1886 if I remember correctly, with an immense fortune of £50,000

Here is a quote relating to a cat's meat man albeit from 1929...

In a London magistrate's court a Mrs. Albert Cratchitt, estranged from her husband, was being sued for nonpayment of bills. Trouble reconciled the Cratchitts. In the dock Albert Cratchitt, beaming, prosperous, appeared beside his wife.
"It's all right, Your Worship," said he. "Mrs. Cratchitt and I, we've forgotten our little differences. I've arranged to pay all her debts. As a matter of fact, I've done pretty well. For 30 years I've had a cat's meat round in the City, and if I do say so I'm a man of independent means."
"What," cried the magistrate, starting beneath his wig, "you made a fortune out of cat's meat?"
"Yes," said Meatman Cratchitt. "Funny, isn't it?"

[Sam Flynn]

I came across a woman with a Cat's meat shop and money lending business who died in 1886 if I remember correctly, with an immense fortune of £50,000 She would, I suggest, have been the exception to the rule, Nemo. Mrs Hardiman lived in a very small room with her son, which she rented - the room, I mean, not the boy ;) Certainly, if you look at photographs of cat's-meat sellers in the East End, they certainly made a good job of disguising their wealth, if they ever attained any in the first place!

[Nemo]

Regarding the hunter/non-hunter debate, do you think the Ripper was finding victims after or during a night out? Or was he simply on his way to work?

He might have been using his work as a cover - slaughterman/butcher/cat's meat man etc

I think he DID have blood on him and was carrying flesh at times - so he either killed and returned to his home, or carried on to work where he may have disposed of the flesh

It's the time of some of the killings that indicate that possibility to me - 3.30am-5.30am

Most of the street activity/business ceased around 2am so if he was "hunting" at this time, surely he could find a victim quite quickly - was he wandering around for hours? Or did he set out for work around 2-2.30am and just happen upon the unfortunates out at that time?


The Buck's Row killing is an anomaly as far as I can tell - why would he be in the relatively deserted street at 3.30am? wandering looking for victims?wandering looking for a place to sleep?or on his way to work?

[Sam Flynn]

The Buck's Row killing is an anomaly as far as I can tell - why would he be in the relatively deserted street at 3.30am?A more interesting question might be, "why did he have to wait until 3.30AM to find a victim?"

If the streets of Whitechapel were teeming with "easy meat" to the extent that a serendipitous, non-local, assassin could pick his moment to wander into town and kill, then why do we see such a spread in times of death?

Doesn't the wide range of times rather indicate that the killer was someone prepared, and able, to hang around until conditions suited his purpose? And that, when pushed to the limit - e.g. at daybreak on the 8th September - he would even opt for one the most risky locations imaginable in order to satisfy his urge?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

A more interesting question might be, "why did he have to wait until 3.30AM to find a victim?"

There is no evidence he did at all. No evidence he was waiting to find a victim or anything else. he may easily have been going home after a hard days graft.

If the streets of Whitechapel were teeming with "easy meat" to the extent that a serendipitous, non-local, assassin could pick his moment to wander into town and kill, then why do we see such a spread in times of death?

Nope....not an assassin at all. Just a chappie. Not wandering into town to kill. Perhaps wandering out of town when accosted.

Doesn't the wide range of times rather indicate that the killer was someone prepared, and able, to hang around until conditions suited his purpose? And that, when pushed to the limit - e.g. at daybreak on the 8th September - he would even opt for one the most risky locations imaginable in order to satisfy his urge?

Nope. It indicates that there was no particular rhyme or reason for his killing.

If this was the famed local hunter.....it seems a bit odd that, as asserted, after "hanging around until conditiosn suited his puspose" and waiting that time he then got it arseways and decided to kill his victim under a window, in an enclosed yard, within earshot of the residents next door.

The span of times, the utter implausibility of the locations being killer conducive, the mad risk taking, the passive locations....all indicative of a man for hwom killing was not planned, probably not even high on the list of his priorities and definitely not out hunting.

p

[Nemo]

Hi Mr P

So are you suggesting that an otherwise normal bloke had some sort of mental trigger causing him to, on occasion, savagely cut the womans throat, mutilate and carry organs away with little thought of the consequences and risk of capture? What would he need the organs for? and why would he stop killing?

I think you might be making too much of the location and potential witnesses. He obviously DID get away and nobody heard or did anything so it wasn't a bad choice of location after all

He possibly expected little or no interference even if the victim screamed - which may point to him knowing the area very well indeed

[Sam Flynn]

So are you suggesting that an otherwise normal bloke had some sort of mental trigger causing him to, on occasion, savagely cut the womans throat, mutilate and carry organs away with little thought of the consequences and risk of capture?... and to do that, moreover, at extremely odd and varied times during the small hours of the morning - in the same locale, four times in a row (or five, or six, depending on one's canonical inclinations), over a period of a mere 10 weeks.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Nemo

So are you suggesting that an otherwise normal bloke had some sort of mental trigger causing him to, on occasion, savagely cut the womans throat, mutilate and carry organs away with little thought of the consequences and risk of capture? What would he need the organs for? and why would he stop killing?

Yup. Pretty much like reams of other lunatics for whom killing was about as important or as memorable as eating their dinner. I reckon he never even thought of capture, had no particular concern about it, and the mutilation itslef was just as random (in its occurrence) as the actual killing. As for organs...I reckon they were no more important than the thousands of odd little things odd balls often do.

Who said he stopped? At any rate.....its quite possible, as for other kilelrs, he just stopped in the same way some people just stop smoking or whatever and its also possible that he, for example, ceased to find him self in situations where the event sequence was probable, or he stopped taking drugs, or any of the hundred reasons people stop doing anything.

think you might be making too much of the location and potential witnesses. He obviously DID get away and nobody heard or did anything so it wasn't a bad choice of location after all

Not true. People did see him and heard him. In fact he was heard whilst killing Chapman, possibly heard whilst doing Nicholds, was within a hair breadth of being seen with Eddowes and was a few minutes away from being seen with Nichols, WAS seen if one accepts Stride as victim, was probably heard doing Kelly and so on........

It was luck that he wasn't nabbed. Thats all. And if you reckon they were good choices of location given that he was so close to capture each time and the bodies of someof his victims were found within a few minutes.....then your idea of a good killing location and mine are obviously not the same.

He possibly expected little or no interference even if the victim screamed - which may point to him knowing the area very well indeed

Possible for Nichols....but are you seriously trying to tell me that at the height of the terror when he killed Chapman, Eddowes, maybe Stride and Kelly that he really thought a woman screaming wouldnt have brought some attention? Are you really trying to say that?

Otherwise....I will pose the question again in the full and firm belief that it will be no more answered now than it was at the beginning of the thread: what evidence is there that our man was some kind of local "hunter"?

p

[Nemo]

I never discount a theory Mr P as we know so little about the real Ripper, so yours is as good as any - certainly worth considering

I would have expected "your man" to have continued killing though, and have been caught at some point since he had such disregard for his own safety

He sounds like the kind of loony who would openly declare in a pub or street "I am the Ripper" - which probably diverted attention away from himself as nobody would be that stupid

I don't think it explains his consistency with the dates though and his seeming obsession with the mutilations etc

I think he DID venture out with the intention of killing and his speed was the telling factor in choosing whether he could get away or not

I think he would have been quite prepared to kill and mutilate and be ready to simply run away if interrupted by a third party - he had a knife to defend himself if necessary

As well as people chasing/mobbing suspects in the street, there are many stories of people running away in panic when someone declared "I'm Jack the Ripper!"

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Nemo

I would have expected "your man" to have continued killing though, and have been caught at some point since he had such disregard for his own safety

Perhaps he ceased to be in the areas or circumstances where he was most likely to be confronted with the sort of situations that resulted in dead women? Or topped himself?

He sounds like the kind of loony who would openly declare in a pub or street "I am the Ripper" - which probably diverted attention away from himself as nobody would be that stupid

A fair point. Or had at best a hazy recollection of what he did or confided to his family perhaps who then said nothing? Not unknown for a family/friends to know/suspect such things about someone and say nothing.

I don't think it explains his consistency with the dates though and his seeming obsession with the mutilations etc

I dont see why certain dates are inconsistent with a man who was regularly in or passing through Whitechapel?

I think he DID venture out with the intention of killing and his speed was the telling factor in choosing whether he could get away or not

If a hunter was faced with the choice of either 1) working like a demon in exposed situations and hoping his speed would facilitate escape, or 2) just going 100 meters deeper into Whitechapel and a secure spot and taking his time .......... I just do not see option 1 being as attractive.

I think he would have been quite prepared to kill and mutilate and be ready to simply run away if interrupted by a third party - he had a knife to defend himself if necessary

Theres not much running chances from an enclosed back yard or a back street room or even Mitre Square. As to a knife..... many people carried them and how could he know that only one person would show up?

As well as people chasing/mobbing suspects in the street, there are many stories of people running away in panic when someone declared "I'm Jack the Ripper!"

Thats true. So he would have been doing well to defend himself from a mob even if he was handy with a knife. And I really do not see everybody legging it if someone shouts "ripper". At least one section of the populace, those dressed in blue with truncheons, would not have been running away.

p

[Nemo]

Basically, I think it possible that the Ripper knew full that his actions were causing widespread terror and killing the women on the street or in surroundings close to others was part of the "display".

To me he doesn't dwell on the corpse - he works at speed - and he has a goal to remove a bodily organ and get away - even with Kelly, if indeed the same man killed Kelly, I can see him taking only 20-30mins to complete the dissection and then escaping

"On the street" he is confident that within 5-10 mins or so he can accomplish his goal - closely matching the time it takes for a sexual encounter

If he has the simple experience of having sex time after time with these women, then he would have a good inkling that an East End prostitute is more than capable of take you to a place nearby where she knows there will be practically no chance of being disturbed for 15mins or so even with a bit of "grunting and groaning" going on

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Nemo

and he has a goal to remove a bodily organ and get away

Whats the point in all the facial stuff on Eddowes then and the mess he made of Kelly?

p

[Nemo]

Sorry Mr P I missed your last post

I would think that he could have closed Eddowes eyes with the knife - accidentally caused the "V"s when sawing her face off and slashing her face as a final act before escaping

Kelly actually shows me that he either wasn't that interested in the organs, the mutilation / dissection itself was the goal. With the horror he had created he had no need to take an organ away to increase the impact

Pure speculation of course

-----------------------

If prostitution and sex on the street was illegal, and certainly after the police were told to watch and possibly follow couples, would not the practice arise where the woman may stand apart from the man, waiting for the policeman to pass, and then indicate to the client to join her in the assumption that they would not be disturbed for 5 or 10 minutes?

If that was a common practice, then I see no reason why a regular user of these women would not be aware of at least some of these places and may indeed have loitered there himself - accosting the any woman who strayed near and indicating to her the place that he was familiar with

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Nemo

I am glad to see that you consider him as having done her face last (Eddowes).

I think that to as it is the only logical conclusion to darw.

p