Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**Victims : Their Lodgings**

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

  • **Victims : Their Lodgings**

    Below is an excellent map of John Bennett's which Roy Corduroy posted on a thread set up by Tom Wescott.



    I have to admit, visualizing where these women lived at one time in my mind doesn't equal John's map.
    I think its pretty likely, considering the time of day the women worked as prostitutes, that they knew each other....maybe not intimately, but by sight.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    If not at the same time then it is only an interesting coincidence.

    Is there a table showing when they individually lived there?
    Regards, Jon S.
    "
    The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
    " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
    Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dunno, Jon....a table with the dates would be nice, wouldn't it ?
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #4
        All but Kelly lived at these locations at the time of their death.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        Comment


        • #5
          Tom:
          Do you also think that it's pretty likely...or not.... that these women knew each other ?
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact [email protected]

          Comment


          • #6
            I think it's beyond question that some did. However, it's sometimes wrongly assumed that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were neighbors, but Smith died in April and Tabram didn't move into 19 George Street until July, so there's no reason to suppose they knew each other.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • #7
              It's quite possible that some of them knew JTR, not knowing of course exactly who he was.

              Comment


              • #8
                It sure is, Phil.
                One of the mainstream concepts regarding the killer is that he was an anonymous phantom.
                However, he may not have been unknown, as you've just said, to the victims.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact [email protected]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                  It sure is, Phil.
                  One of the mainstream concepts regarding the killer is that he was an anonymous phantom.
                  However, he may not have been unknown, as you've just said, to the victims.
                  I tend to believe an "unknown" would have been noticed more, not only to the victims, but to the witnesses (few that there were) as well. Someone common in the area would go unnoticed more easily. IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    By "unknown", do you mean someone who traipsed through the neighborhood less frequently than a 'regular' in the vicinity, Alan ?
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Exactly. A "regular" would draw far less attraction then an "unknown" person hanging about. This is a common phenomenon where we tend to ignore what is familiar to us (be it a person in an appropriate setting or an object placed in a commonly accepted location.) We tend to notice something that seems out of place much faster.

                      Alan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I wouldn't be at all surprised if we have not read of him in the papers, one among many who were fingered by someone, brought in, checked out and released.
                        Regards, Jon S.
                        "
                        The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                        " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                        Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think it depends how many strangers are in the area and how much the observer is looking for something out of the ordinary

                          If I was in a pub in London full of people strange to me, I think I would take less notice of people in the crowd than if I was in a local pub with people known to me

                          Certainly people seem to have been actively looking out for Americans, strangers asking women to accompany them somewhere, people with black bags and the like, but I think if we are talking about someone with blood on them after a murder then I don't think it would matter if he was a stranger or not

                          If we are talking about people seen with the victims prior to their murder, then there are a number of reasons why people would not report that situation to the police - because they have their own opinion that the subject is not JtR and it doesn't occur to them to mention him, they wouldn't want to be known as a snitch/grass, fear of reprisal etc

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X