Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the local.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    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.
    I haven’t read Mr P’s take on profiling. Of course that’s supposedly an indicator of where the killer lived while committing the crimes rather than of how well he knew the area, isn’t it? Apart from any general doubts I might have about profiling, I wonder how much use it can be in an area with a significant vagrant population.

    Take Foggy as a case in point. I’m not suggesting he had any involvement in any of the WM other than possibly Martha’s, but if he’d had killed a few more, where might a geographical profile have located him? STGITE workhouse? The infirmary in Thomas Street? Brick Lane? Princelet Street? NE Passage? Wandsworth Prison? Or any of the dark East End corners where he must have occasionally have spent a houseless night?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      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.

      I tend to agree with you here Gary. I think that he could well have selected the murder locations well in advance, having developed a picture of the their respective 'comings and goings'. Either done specifically or simply through intimate knowledge having lived/worked in very close proximity to them.

      I really do believe he was locally based, purely from a logistics perspective. It's difficult enough nowadays getting across London, taking ages, back then with limited transport options etc. I think it would been far worse. It is most likely he was travelling around on foot.

      Comment


      • #18
        So you believe the killer selected the murder locations and waited spider-like for victims to enter his web?

        I think he could have waited a long time in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street...

        He may, however, have reconnoitred the haunts of importuning unfortunates before picking them up and letting them lead him to the sites...or perhaps he was simply opportunistic...

        Regards

        Dave
        Last edited by Cogidubnus; May 21, 2019, 04:58 AM. Reason: amended last sentence

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tristan Hardman-Dodd View Post
          I tend to agree with you here Gary. I think that he could well have selected the murder locations well in advance, having developed a picture of the their respective 'comings and goings'. Either done specifically or simply through intimate knowledge having lived/worked in very close proximity to them.

          I really do believe he was locally based, purely from a logistics perspective. It's difficult enough nowadays getting across London, taking ages, back then with limited transport options etc. I think it would been far worse. It is most likely he was travelling around on foot.
          Hi Tristan,

          I can’t have expressed myself very well. I see no evidence of local knowledge in the choice of murder sites. Look at Berners Street. Stride was killed a few feet from the side door of a busy club. What kind of local knowledge could have convinced him that was a good idea? Wouldn’t local knowledge have told him that someone could have exited by that door at any moment?


          Gary

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
            So you believe the killer selected the murder locations and waited spider-like for victims to enter his web?

            I think he could have waited a long time in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street...

            He may, however, have reconnoitred the haunts of importuning unfortunates before picking them up and letting them lead him to the sites...

            Regards

            Dave
            Yes, Dave, that’s my view too. I believe that even Polly, having very limited knowledge of the East End, would have had an idea of where to find a dark corner to take her customers.

            Gary

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              Hi Tristan,

              I can’t have expressed myself very well. I see no evidence of local knowledge in the choice of murder sites. Look at Berners Street. Stride was killed a few feet from the side door of a busy club. What kind of local knowledge could have convinced him that was a good idea? Wouldn’t local knowledge have told him that someone could have exited by that door at any moment?


              Gary
              I imagine what Tristan has in mind, though, is Jack hanging around in Hanbury Street or Commercial Street with a view to leading his victim to the safety (his) of the yard of 29. But people were stirring, residents of 29 may have had cause to visit the back yard, people often slept on the stairs, the yard itself was used for ‘immoral purposes’. Anyone exiting it couldn’t know who they would find in the hallway or in Hanbury Street. That applies as much to a native of Spitalfields as to anyone from outside.

              The killer took risks and was lucky.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hence perhaps "Lipski"

                Dave

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                  The killer took risks and was lucky.
                  But were they calculated risks?

                  It's interesting that four of the murder scenes (Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly) seem, on the face of it, at least, very risky given the number of people about.

                  Why not stick to killing in lower risk locations like Bucks Row?

                  Were they deliberate targets. Did he have a look out?

                  Was he just unhinged or was he cool and calculating?

                  Martyn

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                    I imagine what Tristan has in mind, though, is Jack hanging around in Hanbury Street or Commercial Street with a view to leading his victim to the safety (his) of the yard of 29. But people were stirring, residents of 29 may have had cause to visit the back yard, people often slept on the stairs, the yard itself was used for ‘immoral purposes’. Anyone exiting it couldn’t know who they would find in the hallway or in Hanbury Street. That applies as much to a native of Spitalfields as to anyone from outside.

                    The killer took risks and was lucky.
                    Indeed. He may have had it pegged as a place where prostitutes took there clients. In terms of Berner Street I am presuming that the club was not packed every night? If there had not been a meeting that night, the yard would have been a perfect spot. I suppose that the yard was used much like the garden of Hanbury street. The fact that it was busy that night is the reason he got spooked and left before carrying out any mutilations (a couple of minutes before the arrival of Diemschutz, I reckon).

                    I think that is the reason Stride was hanging around outside the yard, why she got pushed on the street by BS man, it was her 'patch', where she would pick up clients to take into the yard. Maybe Hanbury street was Chapman's 'patch'?

                    With this in mind, surely it is not beyond imagination to envisage that the murderer could have scoped both places out beforehand, seeing prostitutes and residents coming in and going out and establishing when would be the most opportune moment to strike?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                      So you believe the killer selected the murder locations and waited spider-like for victims to enter his web?

                      I think he could have waited a long time in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street...

                      He may, however, have reconnoitred the haunts of importuning unfortunates before picking them up and letting them lead him to the sites...or perhaps he was simply opportunistic...

                      Regards

                      Dave
                      Sounds a little far fetched I know, but some serial killers have been known to do this. We have no idea how many abortive attempts he may have made? There could have been lots, him getting cold feet at the last second or someone disturbing him. He could have, for example been at the back of Hanbury street on multiply occasions and just not gone through with it? We just don't know?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tristan Hardman-Dodd View Post
                        Indeed. He may have had it pegged as a place where prostitutes took there clients. In terms of Berner Street I am presuming that the club was not packed every night? If there had not been a meeting that night, the yard would have been a perfect spot. I suppose that the yard was used much like the garden of Hanbury street. The fact that it was busy that night is the reason he got spooked and left before carrying out any mutilations (a couple of minutes before the arrival of Diemschutz, I reckon).

                        I think that is the reason Stride was hanging around outside the yard, why she got pushed on the street by BS man, it was her 'patch', where she would pick up clients to take onto the yard. Maybe Hanbury street was Chapman's 'patch'?

                        With this in mind, surely it is not beyond imagination to envisage that the murderer could have scoped both places out beforehand, seeing prostitutes and residents coming in and going out and establishing when would be the most opportune moment to strike?
                        I’ve no idea how busy the club was on a weekday, but it was known as a rowdy place and the rows often spilled out onto the street. Surely someone with any real local knowledge would have known that?

                        My point is that there is nothing in the choice of murder sites that argues for a killer with detailed local knowledge.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Dutfield's Yard must have been a busy place all the time. There are some wonderful maps and graphics showing the yard and everything there. There were stables and privies in the back yard. A socialist paper was printed on premises and it sounded like a lot of things happened there as well as people living there. The Deimschutz, man and wife, were caretakers.

                          There was a pub across the street so that could have been a source to possibly furnish errant prostitutes who could have been talked into the yard.

                          In four of the C-5 cases we have reports, accurate or not, of the women interacting with men shortly before they were killed. Mrs. Long swore she saw Annie Chapman talking to a man just outside the Hanbury Street address. Man: "Will you." Annie: "Yes." Liz and BS Man. Kate and a man seen by Lawende and friends. Mary and Mr. A. seen by Hutchinson though many of us believe she had another customer or two after Mr. A. left, if he existed in the first place.

                          Unless Jack broke into Mary's room, he did not lurk there waiting for her. He could have waited in the passage or court but in the end Mary was only wearing her chemise in bed on a cold night with only a blanket and sheet for warmth. She must have undressed for a client. As others have pointed out, other women in the same building, for instance Mrs. Prater, went to bed fully dressed.

                          A problem with Hanbury Street is the privies were in the backyard. Reasonably, people would be coming and going as well as people off the street possibly entering the backyard for the same purpose. Probably most or all tenants also used chamber pots in their rooms but evidence suggests Annie was killed near sunup and many people would be getting ready for work or already have started to work even earlier. It would make sense for those fully awake to go to the privy first thing even if it was just to empty the chamber pot.

                          Jack would set himself up to be noticed if he lurked in the passage or backyard of Hanbury.

                          We have no idea about Kate. When she left gaol she seemed to go rapidly toward something, somewhere. Some of us do wonder if she could have been grabbed close to where she was killed. Putting many pieces together, I have always wondered if Jack had a bolt hole or residence IN Mitre Square. We know there were night watchmen in some premises and that some of the buildings were unoccupied.

                          The deposition of Kate's apron piece at Goulston Street indicates to me he did not immediately leave the general area of Mitre Square to return directly to Whitechapel and that he was able to hide out or just not be discovered for a period of time.
                          The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                            Dutfield's Yard must have been a busy place all the time. There are some wonderful maps and graphics showing the yard and everything there. There were stables and privies in the back yard. A socialist paper was printed on premises and it sounded like a lot of things happened there as well as people living there. The Deimschutz, man and wife, were caretakers.

                            There was a pub across the street so that could have been a source to possibly furnish errant prostitutes who could have been talked into the yard.

                            In four of the C-5 cases we have reports, accurate or not, of the women interacting with men shortly before they were killed. Mrs. Long swore she saw Annie Chapman talking to a man just outside the Hanbury Street address. Man: "Will you." Annie: "Yes." Liz and BS Man. Kate and a man seen by Lawende and friends. Mary and Mr. A. seen by Hutchinson though many of us believe she had another customer or two after Mr. A. left, if he existed in the first place.

                            Unless Jack broke into Mary's room, he did not lurk there waiting for her. He could have waited in the passage or court but in the end Mary was only wearing her chemise in bed on a cold night with only a blanket and sheet for warmth. She must have undressed for a client. As others have pointed out, other women in the same building, for instance Mrs. Prater, went to bed fully dressed.

                            A problem with Hanbury Street is the privies were in the backyard. Reasonably, people would be coming and going as well as people off the street possibly entering the backyard for the same purpose. Probably most or all tenants also used chamber pots in their rooms but evidence suggests Annie was killed near sunup and many people would be getting ready for work or already have started to work even earlier. It would make sense for those fully awake to go to the privy first thing even if it was just to empty the chamber pot.

                            Jack would set himself up to be noticed if he lurked in the passage or backyard of Hanbury.

                            We have no idea about Kate. When she left gaol she seemed to go rapidly toward something, somewhere. Some of us do wonder if she could have been grabbed close to where she was killed. Putting many pieces together, I have always wondered if Jack had a bolt hole or residence IN Mitre Square. We know there were night watchmen in some premises and that some of the buildings were unoccupied.

                            The deposition of Kate's apron piece at Goulston Street indicates to me he did not immediately leave the general area of Mitre Square to return directly to Whitechapel and that he was able to hide out or just not be discovered for a period of time.
                            Excellent post, Anna.

                            Just one question: is it the case that Diemschutz was the caretaker of the club? I thought he was the/a steward.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                              Dutfield's Yard must have been a busy place all the time. There are some wonderful maps and graphics showing the yard and everything there. There were stables and privies in the back yard. A socialist paper was printed on premises and it sounded like a lot of things happened there as well as people living there. The Deimschutz, man and wife, were caretakers.

                              There was a pub across the street so that could have been a source to possibly furnish errant prostitutes who could have been talked into the yard.

                              In four of the C-5 cases we have reports, accurate or not, of the women interacting with men shortly before they were killed. Mrs. Long swore she saw Annie Chapman talking to a man just outside the Hanbury Street address. Man: "Will you." Annie: "Yes." Liz and BS Man. Kate and a man seen by Lawende and friends. Mary and Mr. A. seen by Hutchinson though many of us believe she had another customer or two after Mr. A. left, if he existed in the first place.

                              Unless Jack broke into Mary's room, he did not lurk there waiting for her. He could have waited in the passage or court but in the end Mary was only wearing her chemise in bed on a cold night with only a blanket and sheet for warmth. She must have undressed for a client. As others have pointed out, other women in the same building, for instance Mrs. Prater, went to bed fully dressed.

                              A problem with Hanbury Street is the privies were in the backyard. Reasonably, people would be coming and going as well as people off the street possibly entering the backyard for the same purpose. Probably most or all tenants also used chamber pots in their rooms but evidence suggests Annie was killed near sunup and many people would be getting ready for work or already have started to work even earlier. It would make sense for those fully awake to go to the privy first thing even if it was just to empty the chamber pot.

                              Jack would set himself up to be noticed if he lurked in the passage or backyard of Hanbury.

                              We have no idea about Kate. When she left gaol she seemed to go rapidly toward something, somewhere. Some of us do wonder if she could have been grabbed close to where she was killed. Putting many pieces together, I have always wondered if Jack had a bolt hole or residence IN Mitre Square. We know there were night watchmen in some premises and that some of the buildings were unoccupied.

                              The deposition of Kate's apron piece at Goulston Street indicates to me he did not immediately leave the general area of Mitre Square to return directly to Whitechapel and that he was able to hide out or just not be discovered for a period of time.
                              Some excellent points here! Thanks Anna. Point taken about the club on Berner street being very busy, but the yard? Pitch black and relatively out of the way from the street. It seems like the perfect place for prostitutes to take their clients. The club may have been aware of this fact but let it go as it didn't cause any trouble (supposition I know). If we accept this fact, we can take that the prostitutes were not unduly concerned with being disturbed when transacting their business, so maybe the murderer thought it was was worth the risk. (it appears that it wasn't as I imagine he was either disturbed or got cold feet at the last second). I think that he would have been more inclined to take the risk if he had scoped the place out before hand?

                              In terms of Hanbury street I don't think he was lurking in either the passage way or the back garden, though he may have been in there on multiply occasions. As I mentioned in a previous post we have no idea if he had some 'dry' runs he had or how many times didn't go through with it a the last second.

                              There would have been no reason for people to have reported seeing a particular person, say in the passage way of no. 29 in the weeks before hand, if was known that the premise was used by prostitutes. Equally on the night(s) in question there is the possibly that there were more eye witnesses who either did not come forward (I imagine a lot of people simply would not have anything to do with the police) or simply did not remember (they were drunk?) or consider what they saw as important. We just don't know?

                              We can only guess how many different men the victims were with on the nights they were murdered. Due to the nature of their business and the need for them to make as much money as possible, they would have probably approached many (this explains the BS man incident in my mind, he was angry at being propositioned and pushed her away) and presumably went off with at least a few. With such inaccurate time reporting, it is very difficult to establish when and with whom they were with at what time. Plus we don't know how quickly it took them to pick up a new client, could have been very quick. The murderer would likely have been making a 'beeline' for them. All this makes things very complex.

                              Of course I could (and am very likely to be barking up the wrong tree) but I think it is good to keep throwing ideas into the pot, as it were!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tristan Hardman-Dodd View Post
                                Some excellent points here! Thanks Anna. Point taken about the club on Berner street being very busy, but the yard? Pitch black and relatively out of the way from the street. It seems like the perfect place for prostitutes to take their clients.
                                Hi Tristran

                                As Tom Wescott once, (rather pungently if I recall!), reminded me, the club's toilets were across the yard, and guess what happens on a busy night when drinks are being served?

                                Cheers
                                Dave

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X