Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the local.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jack the local.

    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Or Jack might have been a local, working class fellow who was nobody special, who solved his frustrations with murder in 1888 and possibly beyond. Perhaps he was just lucky.
    I only started this thread so as not to derail this poll thread:
    http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=8916&page=13


    Re Jack the local man.

    Ostenisibly JTR wasn't caught which might indicate he used his local knowledge to avoid capture.

    He is local:

    He blended in with his environment (personally, culturally).
    He knew the behavior/beats of the police.
    His local knowledge allowed him to influence the choice of the murder sites.
    His local knowledge allowed him to escape after a murder.
    He could get to a safe place in short order.
    He could credibily account for himself near/at the time of the murders.

    But I'm pretty neutral about Jack being a local man.

    He might have been born / or lived in the area previously.
    He may only work not live in/near the murder area, commuting each day
    into work.

    The above two scenerios will give him all the same advantages of a local man.

    Also against the local man idea, is the fact the more kills he made locally to where he lived, the greater the risk of getting caught.

    Martyn

  • #2
    A lot of the old cases detail criminals escaping through yards. Many of the homes were used for multiple rentals. The front and back doors were unlocked and the privies were in the backyard. People came and went.

    I highly recommend JtR researchers read the whole Lipski trial in the Old Bailey records. That is where I first REALLY understood this escape route. Lipski was a tenant in the same house as the victim but there was a lot of criticism of the landlords for leaving the door unlocked, that anyone could have gotten in, etc. Then other cases also describe other suspects escaping through front doors and out the back. At least one press clipping somewhere around here says the same thing.

    Houses were also close together. In a Pennington Street case a fellow seemed to crawl out one window and into the window of the house next door.

    Jack was either local or as you say, had intimate local knowledge.
    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Martyn Priestnall View Post
      Also against the local man idea, is the fact the more kills he made locally to where he lived, the greater the risk of getting caught.
      Conversely, the quicker he can get back to safety. Also, the area in which he killed - and probably lived - was very densely populated, in which he'd have been one man among tens of thousands.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen"
      (F. Nietzsche)

      Comment


      • #4
        How many police beats had Jack memorised? Just 5, or every one in H division and the City?

        Comment


        • #5
          It has been written that if JtR was not covered with blood, if he was ten feet away from a victim and acted normal, the police would not have had reason to stop him. Even if they did, a possibly bloody knife meant little before blood typing. I figure Jack wore dark clothes, probably black.

          Many think Jack was questioned during the terror, that his name might actually be in police records somewhere.
          The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

          Comment


          • #6
            I would suspect a local man of working class origins, born either in the local area or in a little further a field. I don't think he was foreign. I think he was working and to all outward appearances completely normal and functioning. I think the nature of his work influenced when he struck (though not sure what he actually did though). I don't think he was married but had a place to live i.e. he was not so poor as to staying at a common lodging house. Probably aged between 25 and 35 (most serial killers are). As to why he stopped I am at a loss, probably committed suicide, possibly? I don't think he was taken to an asylum or moved to a different place.

            Can anyone speculate on the type of job he may have had, if he had one? Or why he stopped?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tristan Hardman-Dodd View Post
              I would suspect a local man of working class origins, born either in the local area or in a little further a field. I don't think he was foreign. I think he was working and to all outward appearances completely normal and functioning. I think the nature of his work influenced when he struck (though not sure what he actually did though). I don't think he was married but had a place to live i.e. he was not so poor as to staying at a common lodging house. Probably aged between 25 and 35 (most serial killers are). As to why he stopped I am at a loss, probably committed suicide, possibly? I don't think he was taken to an asylum or moved to a different place.

              Can anyone speculate on the type of job he may have had, if he had one? Or why he stopped?
              We see from a lot of modern cases that many serial killers do stop and resume normal lives. Recent big case from last year, Joseph DeAngelo, Original Night Stalker suspect. There are many others. I started a small thread here mentioning several of these killers who seemed to have ¨sprees¨ of serial killing while they were having stress with teenage daughters or wives. (There was some objection to my use of the word spree since serial killers are not spree killers. Anyway, short bursts of serial killing activity followed by retirement.)

              I highly suggest ¨The Butcher´s Row Suspect¨ by Scott Nelson, available at Casebook. There are a number of good ideas in that excellent article.

              It may not matter so much what Jack did for a profession as what was available to him for a hiding place. Did he watch or have access to a shop or business premises in non-business hours, for instance?

              An article I dug out of a French publication of the time also mentioned vigilance committees in November/December 1888 being trained to watch abandoned buildings. Apparently despite the local overcrowding and people sleeping on the street, some buildings were unoccupied. So I am unsure how elaborate would Jack´s hiding places have needed to be. He would not necessarily have had to sneak past relatives, etc.

              I think night watchman would have been an excellent profession for Jack.
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tristan Hardman-Dodd View Post
                Can anyone speculate on the type of job he may have had, if he had one?
                I knew a prostitute who got murdered, one of three, and my co-workers knew the killer. He was in air conditioning.

                So I'd go with "Creature Comforts and Aesthetics" Industries and Fields, like landscaper. Number one skilled job for serial killers used to be shoemakers and shoe repairmen. Shoemakers are still number 2. (Michael Arntfield)



                Based on the locations and how well he hits the corners, he could be a footballer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There seems to be a problem with the concept of the outsider. Geographic profiling can't really account for outsiders with a formula or a research study. Common sense would say the odds are an outsider would come from the biggest suburb or the next largest city within a few hours travel, just based on population size.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
                    There seems to be a problem with the concept of the outsider. Geographic profiling can't really account for outsiders with a formula or a research study. Common sense would say the odds are an outsider would come from the biggest suburb or the next largest city within a few hours travel, just based on population size.
                    Given the size of London at the time, the overwhelming likelihood is that an outsider would have come from another part of the city or its sprawling suburbs.

                    Then, what, the home counties and the major conurbations of the Midlands?

                    Of course, we shouldn’t lose sight of London’s attractive to foreign immigrants.


                    Do the origins of the victims bear this out? I believe they do:

                    Nichols: born in the City and lived largely in London south of the Thames before finally making it to the East End in the few weeks before her death.

                    Chapman: connections to west London and Windsor.

                    Stride: Foreign immigrant.

                    Eddowes: born in the west Midlands, brought up in London south of the Thames. As an adult spent time in the Midlands and west London.

                    Kelly: a mystery woman, but allegedly an Irish immigrant who grew up in Wales and arrived in the East End after a stint in Knightsbridge.

                    And I can’t leave Alice out: born in Peterborough, lived in Leicester and spent time in south London before ending up in the East End.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I personally don’t see what relevance where the Ripper was born has to how he operated on the streets of The East End in 1888. How much familiarity with the locale do you need to have to kill someone very quickly in a dark corner and leave without being spotted?

                      What does the killing of Chapman in a back yard near Spitalfields Market at a time of day when early morning workers were stirring and the streets were starting to grow busy tell us about the killer?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          ...What does the killing of Chapman in a back yard near Spitalfields Market at a time of day when early morning workers were stirring and the streets were starting to grow busy tell us about the killer?
                          It tells us that a murderer of strangers was/is difficult to catch...even when he's somewhat bold or even careless, especially when the spree itself was limited in duration and numbers.
                          Best Wishes,
                          Cris Malone
                          ______________________________________________
                          "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Mr. P. will come along and denounce profiling. I took a new look at profiling after reading his opinion and I agree with him. Lots of things can nullify profiling. In some cases it MAY help but it is far from science.

                            As far as JtR, other variables should also be considered. He didn't have a car. Probably did not have a horse drawn vehicle unless he was William Henry Bury. Or a costermonger setting up in one of the nearby markets. (And considering the coster carts near where Alice was killed.) Jack, insider or outsider, knew the ins and outs of the area, specifically in the front door of a rented house and out the back where the privies were. He knew the system of the area.

                            I believe he spoke English with an acceptable British accent. My reason for believing this is, surely Jack did not kill every woman with whom he interacted. I think he must have had an odd personality in some aspects. If he was a foreigner whose language was something other than British English from somewhere in the UK, I think we would have heard of a weird Laskar, Frenchman, Dutchman....even an odd American like Tumblety. Mrs. Lewis/Mrs. Kennedy's man had an odd gait but an odd accent was not mentioned.

                            One last point about profiling and I am sorry I cannot clearly remember the context. It might pertain to American killer Edmund Kemper. If not him, then someone similar. Whichever killer it was had spent some time in prison and he had exchanged information with other prisoners. The point is, these guys influenced each other in ways which made them more alike and able to beat the profiling systems. If I find that video again I will post it.
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                              It tells us that a murderer of strangers was/is difficult to catch...even when he's somewhat bold or even careless, especially when the spree itself was limited in duration and numbers.
                              That’s my feeling, Chris. The degree of local knowledge required was limited. In fact, his killing so close to an early morning market as it was getting into its stride suggests that either the killer had little local knowledge or if he did, he chose not to use it. How could anyone, even if they’d lived in Hanbury Street all their lives, possibly have know that while they were killing Annie in the back yard, someone hadn’t entered the passageway of 29? Or that when they reached the street they wouldn’t have been confronted by a group of burly market porters?

                              As for the police beats, is it likely the killer had memorised all those in Spitalfields, Whitechapel, St. Georges and Aldgate? Or even that he’d chosen a limited number to study which included those around the five murder sites? Surely all he had to do was to use his eyes and ears to establish that he was in no immediate danger of discovery and get on with the business in hand.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X