|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Why did the Ripper choose Whitechapel?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Why did the Ripper choose Whitechapel?
Author: Monty
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 08:40 am |        | How many Serial killers killed off their own patch ?
Monty
PS Oh, sorry, I want names of those Serial murderers who operated before the invention of the car.
Thank you. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 07:12 pm | | Dear Simon,
According to your binary opposition thing...there is 'heaven and hell'. Maybe Jack meant "hell" in the existential mode, a la Jack-Paul Sartre?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 02:43 pm | | AND...why "Whitechapel"?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 06:14 pm | | Monty - here are some serial killers for you who didn't use cars :
* Vacher the French ripper
* Peter Kurten
* George Joseph Smith.
Rosie - why Whitechapel ? Possibly due to some of the reasons suggested above , eg an abundance of appropriate victims and places to carry out murders with the handy scapegoat of the Jewish population to blame it on. Note the victims were all white ' Christian ' women , nobody in the West End would have cared much if some Chinese or Jewish women had been cut up instead. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 06:30 pm | | Dear Simon,
Are'nt you missing the point? By that criteria, nobody would be concerned if they were Irish women. Don't forget the posters in the lodging houses of London during the 50's and 60's "NO BLACKS. NO IRISH. NO DOGS!"
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 06:55 pm | | Rosemary , you might not want Irish people in your lodging house but I don't think you would want to see them hacked and slashed to bits ! They are Christians after all !
First Radka and now you , what have the Irish done ! A more lovely race of people you couldn't wish to meet !
Anyway , the victims were mostly white Protestant women who had come from decent-ish backgrounds and had fallen down hard on their luck : only Kelly was Irish. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 06:01 am | | Dear Simon,
The luck o'the Irish! To return to the subject of this thread..."WHITECHAPEL?" Of all the haunts in all the world, Jack stalked into this haunt. WHY?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 07:51 am | | Simon - You seem to have answered the rider to Monty's question and not the basic question. He wanted the names of serial killers who struck off their own patches, and merely discounted those with wheels whose patches could be taken as being coterminous with their normal driving distances.
And your examples suggest that I wasn't being a nincompoop in feeling stumped by the question. Allowing for normal Victorian peasant or twentieth century urban factory workers' means of transportation, Vacher and Kurten stayed within thier own territory. Smith didn't, unless you define his territory as 'all the available provincial and seaside towns of England where, (as in London) he worked at his occupation of fraud and theft like a travelling salesman'. And, of course, he differs from the others (and the Ripper) in being perfectly rationally motivated by avarice, and not driven by wildly perverted sexual rage.
A good question indeed, I thnk, Monty!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Yes , it is tricky ! But the question of what is meant by ' patch ' is a good one , if Monty means an area the size of Whitechapel then surely all three of the above killers killed off their ' patch ' - non ?
|
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 03:00 pm | | | test - please delete |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 10:33 am | | I think Monty's addendum about the invention of the car shows that he was aware of that, Simon. But he seems to have disappeared temporarily, and I'm sure he can answer for himself when he's finished his cup of tea.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Monty
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 07:47 am | | Simon, Martin,
Tea break over.
Sorry if I was being vague chaps. My post was in reality a slight pop at Peter and the Maybrick theory. The hint that Sir Jim would travel to London to murder as if on a day trip humours me.
Nowadays Serial murders have the option of all kinds of travel whether it is personal or public, and it is fairly cheap.
In 1888 the public transport would cost if you were going to make regular trips to the East End and the only personal travel you would have is by cart or by Shanks's pony.
So surely a serial murderers area in 1888 would be reduced by size simply because he cannot afford to travel out to murder or he feels comfortable in that certain area.
This is another reason why I see Jack as a working or low class person as opposed to a well off Cotton merchant.
Monty
|
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 05:35 pm | | Monty--One of the main problems I have with the Ripper being a working-class bloke is that the police search and subsequent surveillance of Whitechapel was both extensive and thorough. The killer certainly did not escape back to a doss house. These were thoroughly searched, and the police had informants everywhere. What the Victorian police lacked in forensic science, they had an advantage over our modern counter-parts in 'human intelligence'---by which I mean spies and informants. I've recently came across an article about an East End nurse that worked in Whitechapel for upwards of twenty years doing charity work; she was also being paid by Scotland Yard to report back on the criminal activity in the area. There must have been many such informants. There were also those 80,000 fliers distributed in Whitechapel, and there is little doubt that the locals were every bit as keen on catching the murderer as the police were. Besides, the murderer escaped with organs. As far as I am concerned, this indicates that he had the financial means for a private room. I think the reason why Anderson came to the conclusion that the Ripper had to have been "protected by his people" was the simple reason that he could not have gone undetected had he been an inhabitant of the doss houses.
As for needing to know the local geography, etc., I'm a little skeptical about this. Certainly the murderer had the best of all possible accomplices....the victims themselves. They would know all the best hiding-spots and when they would be vacant. The prostitutes of Whitechapel would be experts about the 'beats' of the various police and how to avoid seeing them. Thus, I certaintly don't discount the possibility that the Ripper was a man of means, possibly even coming from outside the area.
The police also had many undercover officers disguised as sailors on the cattle boats, etc.
Of course I'm in total agreement that it wasn't Maybrick.
All strictly my opinion, of course. Cheers, RP |
Author: lucky pierre
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 05:42 pm | | R.J:
Nothing implausible about your opinion! You bring up a most vital question...where in the "shadows" did he go after each murder? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 06:18 pm | | R.J, did you know that Ins Abberline stated of Kelly,--"I think she was a police informer".
Rick |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 06:34 pm | | Warwick--I must admit that I missed that one.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 05:31 am | | R.J.
just a small comment on the thoroughness of the police habitat searches.As Hutchinson seems unknown untill coming forward with his statement,it appears that he must have escaped any prior attention ,and he lodged at the Victoria Home on Commercial St.I just wonder how complete the searches were,as they had been ongoing long before the Kelly murder. |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 06:29 am | | I think the following extract from the Star, 11 Oct. 1888, page 2, sheds some light on the difficulties faced by the police in searching Whitechapel.
THE CHURCH AND THE SLUMS.
The Reeking Rockeries Whence a City Church Draws its Rents.
One of the dens of iniquity that have been thoroughly overhauled by the police in their search for the Whitechapel murderer is a block of buildings on Fashion-street, Brick-lane, Spitalfields, the property of St. Bride’s Church, Fleet-street. The condition of this property was referred to in The Star only a short time ago, when a member of St. Bride’s Vestry called the attention of his colleagues to the fact that they were receiving an income of about £400 per year from a set of rookeries that were not fit for pigs to live in; but the actual condition of these premises was only to be fully appreciated by a visit to them. A Star reporter paid them a visit. Fashion-street runs parallel to Hanbury-street, the scene of the fourth murder, while the very next street in the other direction is Flower and Dean-street, where are situated the lodging-houses in which dwelt both the victims of the last two horrors. The St. Bride estate includes the George and Guy public-house at the corner of Brick-lane, and a dozen houses covering 250 feet frontage down Fashion-street, ending in the dismantled Northumberland Arms, on the wall of which is a tablet setting forth the fact that
A WEALTHY CITY CHURCH
claims the ownership of this nest of slums. Underneath the Northumberland Arms is a passage so dark that one can scarcely see the color of the walls, so low that one must stoop to pass through, and so dirty that one must exercise the utmost caution to avoid the filth. This leads to another row of houses, still part of the same property, known as Union-court. These tenements in themselves are in a little better condition than those on the street front, but the courtyard is a perfect disgrace, even to the civilisation of Spitalfields. It is doubtful if any member of St. Bride’s Vestry could make the tour of its limited extent without severe qualms of some sort, if not of conscience. The Star man incidentally questioned some of the denizens of these dwellings, and found that the sanitary inspector was an unknown quantity there. One intelligent-looking fellow said he did not know what it was, and another said he believed there had been one seen in the next street, but never in that court. The back view from the houses on Union-court is not bad. Spitalfields churchyard is that way, but in front there is nothing but the narrow court above referred to, and the still nastier courts of the houses in Fashion-street. The Star man made his way first into the court-yard of No. 35. The place was a sort of general shop, where an unkempt Jewess was skimming dirt off a can of milk, preparatory to serving a customer. The stench of decaying vegetables was unbearable, but as one miraculously passed without slipping down on the slimy flooring of the passage, it was found that the odour of the shop was like attar of roses in comparison with the aroma that arose from the yard. There was a water tap in the court, but it was out of order, and it was evident, from a reeking pool of recently fallen rain water, that the drain was stopped.
The Star man went into several other yards in the block, and found the same condition of things prevailing in a greater or less degree. There was no difficulty in penetrating to the top floors, for no one seemed to take any notice of whoever might come and go, and one could not but think how easily a Whitechapel murderer
MIGHT FIND A REFUGE
in some such quarter as this. In at least three of the houses the stairways had certainly not been scrubbed for weeks. The dirt was fully an inch thick, and the sound of footsteps on the stairs was an impossibility. A policeman who was with the Star man said his duty at that time consisted in ascertaining how many families occupied each house, but the promiscuous domestic relations that appeared to exist among the inmates made his task a most difficult one. Some of them had lodgers they never saw for days at a time. Their doors were left unlocked all night, and they had no idea at what hour or under what circumstances their lodgers went in or out. Under such conditions there can no longer be any wonder as to where or how a murderer might hide himself. The police officer remarked that there were hundreds of such hiding places in that district, but as he expressed it: - “This is the dirtiest drum of the lot.” The old Northumberland Arms hostelry at the end of the row is tenanted only by rats. Its windows are broken, and its doors unhinged. In one window is the familiar suggestion that the building is “To let,” on the walls are posted the bills offering rewards for the Whitechapel murderer, and higher up is the tablet inscribed “St. Bride’s Estate.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 08:01 am | | RJ,
Valid points.
But I do not think that a wealthy person would travel from on side of the country to commit a murder on the other side.
Monty
|
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 08:30 am | | Monty--Several years ago on American television there was a spot about a particularly distressing unsolved murder. It involved a young woman that was murdered in a hotel. She was brought there by {and last seen in the company of} an affluent British couple. Of course the police searched high and low for this couple. They were able to trace their movements all the way back to their departure for America from Heathrow airport. Eventually, the police came to the disturbing realization that this couple had travelled to America using assumed names, picked up a woman, murdered her, and flew back to London, as if on vacation.
That said, I tend to think the Whitechapel murderer did have some sort of lodgings in the area. But by October he might have had more to fear from the local thugs than from the police. Ever see the film "M" about the Dusseldorf murderer? The local criminals wouldn't have looked kindly on the fellow that brought increased police presence to the area. My thinking is that these weren't the crimes of a local man. They began and ended too suddenly, as if someone came to the area, and then left.
But this is merely speculation, of course. Cheers. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 11:42 am | | Hi RJ,
That sounds like a very interesting and curious case.
Do you know if the young woman was sexually molested at all? It's difficult to even guess at a motive as the couple were never brought to trial, but do you think they did it 'for sport', just because they could? And do you think sex would have played a part?
Here is a case where two people were thought to be working together to kill 'just for jolly'.
And still very few people seem prepared to consider that two men, casually indifferent to the kind of human life they could be sure to encounter in the East End, may have egged each other on to kill a Whitechapel drab - just because they could, and without any thought, or desire, to interfere with such a one sexually. And that when they got away with it the first time, they tried it once more, and then again, and again, until maybe they grew bored, or found they'd gone much further than they ever meant to go down that road.
Again, just more speculation.
Strange murder cases do happen, and JtR is about as strange as a murder case gets.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 11:49 am | | Hi again RJ,
I just edited the first bit of my post because on re-reading yours, I now grasp why the case was unsolved, in that the couple couldn't be identified from the names they must have given when they travelled.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 12:57 pm | | Caz--It's been quite a number of years since the program aired, and I have unfortunately forgotten most of the details. I do remember being particularly appalled that the crime seemed to be so analytical and even 'recreational'. The use of false identification, etc., clearly suggested that it was pre-meditated.
I can't really argue against Harry's point, nor against the implications of the article that Alex posted. The Whitechapel murderer certainly could have been a local that was clever enough to avoid detection, despite the police searches, the vigilance committees, amateur detectives, and the ever unruly mob. But I still can't really find a good reason why this couldn't be the work of someone coming in from outside the area. Take for instance, Annie Chapman's rings. We know from Swanson's report on 19th of October that the police made a special enquiry at "all pawnbrokers, jewellers, dealers" in order to find if the rings had been sold. If this was the work of a local laborer, we might expect the rings to have shown up. Evidently, they didn't. This is not hard evidence of anything, of course, but it might suggest that Chapman wasn't killed by a local tramp eager to get a pint of ale. I also can't get passed the idea that most of the known murderers of this type aren't so prolific. They seem to spread out their evil acts over a fairly long period of time. Even if one includes Tabram and Alice MacKenzie in the toll, the murders took place in a frighteningy quick succession, and then ceased. Why?
Any thoughts? One might agree with Martin that the Ripper was caged in an asylum. Or one could agree with the Druittists that he was drowned in the Thames. But if this was a local working-class serial murderer, I think there needs to be some explanation offered of why the crimes started and ceased so abruptly. I'm open to persuasion. Cheers. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 01:51 pm | | Well, RJ, I think I just gave you one.
Two young men, daring or betting one another to go into hell, slice up someone already living in hell, then get the hell out again.
How abruptly would that start? And how long would the thrill last?
Or are you just not open to the two-man idea? And if not, why not?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 03:24 pm | | Caz--No, actually I think an accomplice is a decent possibility, but I'm undecided.
It almost sounds like you're describing those two rich kids from Chicago...Leopold and Loeb. Interesting thought. See the anthropologist Elliot Leyton's theory in the A-Z [I have the first edition, don't know if it's in the later ones]. His theory seems to be that the Whitechapel crimes were triggered by a 'self-protecting class revenge', an inverted version of his main thesis that these sort of murders are, at their base, a sort of 'social gratification'. If this is true [seems a little academic to me] look for someone who came from a highly dysfunctional working-class background, but, nonetheless had an exaggerated idea of his own social importance. Ammorality and narcissism. Possibly someone like George Chapman or Francis Tumblety. Druitt, I'd say no. (that's my amateur psychological profile). RP
|
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 04:38 am | | RJ,
I heard of a similar case that happened in the US.
My memory is sketchy about it but there was a town that had a murder on the 4th of July.
It was unsolved.
Then exactly a year on there was another murder. Then a year after that another.
It transpired that a chap from the other side of the US took his vacation every 4th of July in this town and killed. It took a few murders before the authorities clicked on to this.
So I can see your point and I cannot and will not totally discount it.
Take care,
Monty
|
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 06:27 am | | Hi RJ, Monty,
We think of a typical lone serial killer as someone who is compelled to go out and kill strangers, over and over, until he gets buckled. And his comfort zone of operation is usually thought to be the area where he spends most, or much of his time.
But there does appear to be another type of killer, those who plan initially to kill more out of curiosity than anything else, to see what it feels like. Then, depending on how much of a kick they get out of the experience, and how easy it was to get away with it, they plan to do it again - or not, as the case may be.
The obvious choice of victim for this second type would also be a total stranger. But the obvious choice of location would not be near the killer's own doorstep. Also, the operative word here being choice, I'm not sure that multiple murders committed by this type need display a similar MO. And, in the case Monty cites, the killer chose exactly when he wanted to kill too.
Such control over his own plans suggests to me the possibility that this type of killer would also have no problem at all choosing when to stop.
But how, in unsolved cases, would you tell the difference, and know which type you were dealing with?
A grim thought just occurred to me. If two young bloods were spurring each other on with their jolly jaunts to Whitechapel, it might also explain the difference in the 'trophies' taken - one challenging the other to get a certain organ each time? Ending with the heart, perhaps?
Could give a whole new meaning to The Savage Club. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 08:04 am | | RJP - I think your point about the police failure to find Annie Chapman's rings, despite checking pawnshops etc is one of the most intriguing I've recently seen. One must assume that they searched the habitats and possessions of 'suspects' as well. So there are really fascinating implications about the Ripper's disposal or loss of the rings - or the complete and utter failure of the police ever to get a lead on him at all.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 09:17 am | | Hi all,
It is an undisputed fact that for the most part of the investigation of the Ripper's murders the MET was looking for a killer among people of poor class residing in Whitechapel. When police constable Robert Spicer arrested a suspect at Heneage Court and took him to the police station, he was reprimanded for disturbing a such respectable doctor.
It is obvious that the police investigation followed the guidelines established by the social prejudices, and perhaps for this reason the police efforts failed in capturing this killer.
Best regards,
Jose Luis |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 07:18 pm | | | Thanks, Martin. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 06:04 am | | R.J.
Another point is that the killer,normally resident in Whitechapel,may have had a place outside of that locality that he could retire to.
Again referring to Hutchinson,he stated he had been to Romford,and it is believed that he did have relatives there.Unfortunately we do not know how long he was there,whether it was just that day,a week or whatever,or when he had actually gone,but the chances of someone having a bolt hole outside the area might be preety high. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 10:47 am | | Hi Caz,
there is one point you miss out on. What did our man like to do after the killings and it what state of mind was he?
If he wanted to go through the killings in his mind or - eh - play with himself and his trophies, he would have committed the crimes somewhere near to where he was living. That is not something he could do in a crowded train.
On the other hand if he wanted to live out his feeling strong and powerfull then he would have found it very amusing sitting in a train with lots of other people.
Did he go through his fantasy before the killing, during the killing or after the killing? That is if he went through a fantasy at all.
Philip |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 21 June 2002 - 04:18 am | | Hi Philip,
I don't really have an opinion either way on that one. What do you think? Did Jack the game hunter take trophies primarily because he wanted a prize, and to keep it as a souvenir? Or did he take them as part of his display, purely for added shock value, then get rid as soon as poss? Or a bit of both?
Unless he had a room to himself, we could most probably rule out keeping the spoils anywhere, or sending bits of offal through the post and so on. It's not just the taking away, but the disposal or retention of fatal evidence (not to mention the danger of getting caught with his pants down in a room full of newspaper cuttings during the house-to-house) that Jack would need to take into account in order to stay safe.
Just a few thoughts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 21 June 2002 - 06:17 am | | Hi Caz,
I think he kept them as a souvenir. Something to remind him of the killing. No wrong not to remind of the killing itself, but to remind of the aftermath. The killings were quick and of a low-violent nature. The aftermath long up more time as time went on. A small souvenir would help him go through the mutilations again and again.
I am pretty sure that our man lived nearby and did not spend hours on the train or in a coach going home. A quick walk home (maximum 30 minutes) and then ...
I am also pretty sure that he had his own room which was locked when he was away and normally no one would enter.
Philip |
Author: John Dow
Friday, 21 June 2002 - 11:10 am | | Simon said(!)
>Rosemary , you might not want Irish people in >your lodging house but I don't think you would >want to see them hacked and slashed to bits ! >They are Christians after all !
No there's a very interesting point. The victorian belief was that people who had been "dissected" could not enter the kingdom of heaven because their remains were too ruined to rise on the day of judgement. This belief was one of the reasons why being unburied or being grave-robbed was so terrifying for the population. Also, having ones mortal remains left for medical science was one of the nastier penalties a convicted murderer could recieve.
Could there be any connection between the Ripper's MO and a belief that a person perishing in such a way would be prohibited from entering the afterlife?
Just a thought
John D |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 05:54 am | | Dear John D,
Prohibition to the Afterlife? Hm. Don't know about that, but Mary Kelly certainly got a good send-off...both figuratively and literally.
:-) |
|
|
|
|
