|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through September 21, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simplicity - Occams Razor:
Archive through September 21, 2000
Author: Keith Rogan
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 03:56 pm |        | I'm relatively new to this but my first impression is that most of you "Ripperologist's" are getting off-track by allowing yourself to get bogged down in meaningless detail and wild theories.
Look, a killer like this operates in his "comfort zone". It's obvious he knows the area and just as obvious that the victims know and trust him.
What geographic commonalities do we have among the victims? If we ignore where the bodies of the Canonical Five are found and concentrate and where they LIVED and DRANK you find all five are tied to a tiny little area around Flower & Dean and Dorset Street - locations in a circle of a block or two.
Get a map and put X's on these spots
Nichols
Lived at 56 Flower & Dean
Chapman
Lived at 35 Dorset
Was drinking at Britannia Pub (between Dorsett and Flower & Dean)
Stride
Lived at 32 Flower & Dean
Frequented Britannia pub (but not night she was murdered)
Eddowes
Lived at 55 Flower & Dean
Kelly
Lived at 35 Dorset
Was drinking at Brittania Pub (between Dorset and Flower & Dean)
Jack The Ripper lived or worked in this area. He drank at the Britannia Pub.
Which suspects lived RIGHT THERE or have ties to the Britannia Pub? That man is the murderer. If nobody fits the bill then our man is not on the list of suspects. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 04:01 pm | | | Oops - Kelly lived OPPOSITE 35 Dorset in Millers Court. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 08:59 pm | | | We have been down that road, Keith. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 09:11 pm | | Keith,
These interesting connections were thoroughly investigated by the police, who apparently came up with nothing in the way of a suspect that we know about. The closest view to what you (and others) have suggested was given by retired MET Inspector Edmund Reid, who said in a 1903 newspaper interview:
"The whole of the murders were done after the public houses were closed; the victims were all of the same class, the lowest of the low, and living within a quarter of a mile of each other; all were murdered within half a mile area; all were killed in the same manner. That is all we know for certain.
My opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public house, and of remaining there until closing time. Leaving with the rest of the customers, with what soldiers call 'a touch of the delirium triangle,' he would leave with one of the women."
Unfortunately Reid did not name the 'certain public house', but it may very well be the Britannia.
Ref: Connell & Evans, The Man Who Hunted JTR: Edmund Reid and the Police Perspective, 2000,
p. 154. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 11:53 pm | | Everything Scott says must, of course, be taken in the context that he is an Oakland Raiders fan.
I'm just waiting for Tiki and Ron to have a run at that Redskins line this Sunday!
Ya-Ya,
David |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 01:17 am | | Scott, John, David,
They didn't live "within a 1/4 mile of each other" - they lived right on top of each other, and all around the Britannia pub. you really need to look at a map and pinpoint where they lived to appreciate that this is not a coincidence and that these women were stalked or "picked" by the killer.
The killer was someone they knew and trusted and who lived right there.
I don't know who he was but you can eliminate just about all the subjects based on this alone. |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 04:24 am | | Hello All !
I think you are bang on the money Keith. I believe that because the Ripper was never discovered even with all the resources the police could commit to the investigation, that we have given the man too much credit. Its no great blunder by the police that the killer was never caught. Even today, with all the best technology and the experience of some very clever men it is often a simple stroke of luck that can help the police catch a serial killer.
There have been too many wild theories conjured up over the years. I, like yourself believe the area of Flower & Dean Street to be most significant area in the investigation, though for slightly different reasons than the Brittania. The killer had to be a local, a simple, ordinary man who knew the area extremely well and more-than-likely stalked his victims.
Good luck with your theories, looking forward to reading more on the message boards.
Jeff D |
Author: George Sotiriou
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 04:25 am | | Hello,
I do not think you can eliminate all subjects based on this one thing alone. You have to understand this 112 year mystery will still be ongoing for the same amount of time. It is an ongoing charade.
Many have looked at the living premises and concluding the murderer was a local and knew his victims. The murderer may of picked his victims.It may of been easy for Jack to prey on prostitutes. Remember, no one would think of anyone being of suspicious nature with them. It was what a prostitute done for her living. Picking up clients, taking them to a secluded place and on to the next.
They may of known the killer but I would think the victims would have some sort of trust when being approached by there clients. It was there living. I do not know if they were picky at all or if they were uncomfortable with some of there clients but I generally feel that when money is to be made they had to go with whoever wanted them. They had to pay for provisions, living areas etc...
The killer may of been with the prostitutes before. Got to know them one by one making them feel more comfortable the next time she met him. Maybe he became a regular and then once he established an understanding, he would kill them. I do not know. It is just a maybe.Whoever he or they where, eliminating many subjects which have been put forward is risky.
Regards,
G |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 04:49 am | | Hi Keith and All,
I think you can look at the question of where the victims lived and where they died, relative to where JtR himself may have lived, in two different ways.
If JtR was looking for easy prey, he could not have picked a better location to work in. The prostitutes who tended to lodge in that tiny notorious area were probably more vulnerable and desperate than anywhere else in London. I can imagine the ripper following one of these women as she left the pub, staggering drunkenly along the road, away from her intended lodgings and those of her fellow drabs, hoping to find a customer as desperate for her services as she was for his money. Late into the night, perhaps when she had almost given up or was too tired, drunk or ill to care, JtR finally made his approach.
I agree that he knew the area well, because wherever his intended victim unwittingly led him, he was able to escape into the night afterwards without the least difficulty. And I'm sure he would have had his own lodgings, within reasonably easy reach. But I think it's just as likely that he entered their area on each occasion, where he could expect a result, as it is that he actually lodged in their midst.
Love,
Caz |
Author: adam wood
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 10:37 am | | Keith, just to save you spending time finding out about those who lived in The Britannia...
The occupants are listed as Matilda Ringer, widow of Walter (who died in 1881, contrary to him often being given as the landlord) and her young children.
Adam |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 10:55 am | | To Keith Rogan.
Welcome to the message boards. Let us start with a couple of small points. Firstly, where is the evidence that Liz Stride used to drink in the Britannia? (Not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t ever remember seeing that).
35 Dorset Street was not opposite Mary Jane Kelly’s lodgings. It was on the same side of the road as the entrance to Miller’s Court but further west. The confusion most probably stems from the fact that no. 35 was owned by William Crossingham, as was the block of buildings at 16-19 Dorset St. (but usually referred to as no. 17). The latter was a common lodging house too, was also known as Crossingham’s and it was opposite Miller’s Court.
Anyway, nit-picking aside it does appear, Mr. Rogan that you need to do a little more background reading about the character of the area. In brief, the authorities recognised the need for a new thoroughfare to link the Whitechapel Road area and the docks to the north-eastern fringes of the City by the 1840s. When building Commercial Street they took the opportunity to smash through a series of old rookeries in the hope that it would sweep away the excess of ultra-poor and semi-criminal classes living in the area. That never materialised: the redevelopment of other slum areas in the centre of London; the building of the railways through the cheapest parts into the extensive terminus areas and heavy immigration, both internal from the countryside and external (mainly from Ireland at the time) had all helped to create the overcrowding problem in Spitalfields and Whitechapel. Developments like Commercial Street just had the effect of moving the poor on, cramming them into tighter and tighter spaces, such as the side streets you mention.
These social trends continued over the next forty years and Spitalfields continued to sink in consequence. By 1888 the Rev. Samuel Barnett and some newspaper correspondents were referring to the network of side streets running off the southern half of Commercial Street (with those to the east running into Brick Lane) as the ‘wicked quarter mile’. It was characterised by streets in which a high proportion of the properties were either common lodging-houses (renting beds by the night) or were rented out by the room on daily or weekly terms, these being the only forms of accommodation that the very poorest could afford. As you point out it was from these streets that the victims of Jack The Ripper were drawn – but in the circumstances that is just as we might expect.
Desperate, impoverished prostitutes represented an easy and available class of victim for the murderer and it comes as no surprise that they all lived in that tiny, overcrowded area. All highlighting this fact does is to define for us a common class of victim. It doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the killer. I’m afraid it’s no good making assumptions that he lived in the same street and/or drank in one specific pub. Blanket statements such as, “Jack The Ripper lived or worked in this area. He drank at the Britannia Pub. Which suspects lived RIGHT THERE or have ties to the Britannia Pub? That man is the murderer” have no place in this investigation. Yes, the fact that the murders occurred in such a small area might give rise to a suspicion that the killer was either a local man (Jeff D.) or at least had extensive local knowledge (Caz). For what it’s worth I’d agree with both those statements (though not with the associated stalking comments), but all these things are a very long way from proven. Nor can your statement that the victims knew and trusted the killer be assumed to be correct. Just because people lived in close proximity does not guarantee that they knew one another because the area was so crowded and its population so transient. The relationship between near neighbours was very different to the one that most of us experience today.
Your sentiments in seeking a return to simplicity when studying the case are laudable. There are far too many complex and ludicrous theories and far too many discussions centred on inconsequential details that are then used to ‘prove’ major pointers (witness today when we're back to that damned key again!) However, you must not confuse a simple approach with a merely simplistic one.
Regards, V. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 12:37 pm | | >>>>Yes, the fact that the murders occurred in such a small area might give rise to a suspicion that the killer was either a local man (Jeff D.) or at least had extensive local knowledge (Caz).<<<
Viper,
You're missing the point. It's not where the murders occurred, it's where the victims lived that is important.
Prostitutes tended to ply their trade along the larger thoroughfares like Aldgate/Whitechapel High Street or Commercial Street and that fact becomes obvious if you plot where the murders occurred. However, prostitutes LIVED ALL OVER the East End -Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, etc. What are the odds that a murderer would randomly kill 5 prostitutes in various places around the East End and that they'd ALL turn out to live within a block or so of each other in Spitalfields? It's simply not credible.
Now, look at what we know of serial killers today. They tend not be homeless people eating dead cats out of the gutter and muttering about "evil prostitutes" (Kominski) or the other various characters who openly hate women and wander about drawing attention to themselves. Serial killers tend to be youngish, bright, attractive and have outgoing personalities - think Ted Bundy or Wayne Williams. The police didn't know that and didn't even look at such people in 1888.
The Ripper may have been a clerk or street vendor (or a cop?) in the immediate area where these women lived. He knew all of them and they liked and trusted him - remember, there was a murderer running around and if some crazed, muttering stranger approaches them, they are going to run and scream.
I think we get misled by paying attention to the suspects that the London police focused on - a mistake since they knew NOTHING about serial killers.
Use the information they gathered, but ignore their conclusions. Check out some of the modern serial killer sites and use the profiles and descriptions of what serial killers are actually like rather than what the London police in 1888 thought such a person would be like.
Keith |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 01:03 pm | | Jeffrey and all,
Yes, Flower & Dean/Dorsett street is the heart of the solution. I don't know if it's really possible to solve the crimes 112 years after they occurred but if so, that's where you'll find the answer.
We know that modern serial killers tend to stalk and pick their victims - they spend some time "charming" them and gaining their trust. We know that these five women had this one commonality (they lived in the same place), and so that's where the killer met them.
It's the simplest solution (Occam's Razor) and one that has been ignored for 112 years. It doesn't have the "romance" associated with mad doctors, decadent aristocrats or lesbian midwives, but crime rarely has any romance associated with it.
Our man will fit the profile of a serial killer - quite ordinary, outgoing, etc. He had a 5 day a week day job (look at when the murders occurred). He lived or worked or both in a two block area around Dorsett/Flower & Dean streets.
This is speculative, but I tend to think he may have worked in a capacity where he had contact with the public - ie; I don't think he worked in the back room of some tannery, but more likely was a shopkeeper or clerk. Given the nature of the area, I would think a street vendor would fit the bill nicely. Perhaps he sold meat pies or vegetables and chatted with passers-by... Just a thought.
Keith |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 01:50 pm | | Oh, I forgot to mention one other piece of hard evidence that supports this.
The man who killed Eddowes in Mitre Square left her apron in Goulston Street. Draw a line from Mitre Square to Goulston Street and see where it points... You'll see he was heading for Spitalfields, NOT Whitechapel as some accounts give it out. No other conclusion possible. |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 04:51 pm | | No, I understand your point perfectly Keith; just don’t agree with it that’s all. My point was the poorest, most desperate, most vulnerable class of women were hugely over-represented in the area statistically, and the murderer selected his victims from that class because they were the easiest.
For a start, consider the non-canonical murders. You will find that Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Coles all had links to the same few streets as well. They too were all murdered over broadly the same area. Yet none of these except Tabram are at all widely included as being victims of the same man who killed the canonicals. In fact, many case students don’t include all the five canonicals as his victims either. So unless you are going against the grain here and attributing additional cases to JTR, it is necessary to explain a statistical blip concerning the murder of women from this locality.
It is easy to find links between the victims which help to define their class other than simply locality. All nine were impoverished prostitutes who had sunk to the very bottom stratum of society. All had an alcohol problem to varying degrees. All were desperate for money, would likely be out very late at night trying to get it and might feel forced to take a chance on borderline punters. All except two could be described as middle aged, and all bar one were living in the common lodging-houses. So once more I’d contend that the connection of these women to a small number of streets tells us something about them as victims and something about the character of their neighbourhood – and little about the killer. He obviously had a liking for the easy prey that these women represented and had a knowledge of where to find them, but that wasn’t difficult and didn’t require a residential qualification on his part.
Your latest batch of comments confirm the earlier impression that you are one of the Profiling Tendency. The data widely quoted by criminal profilers about serial killers is gathered mainly from the USA, overwhelmingly collected from the second half of the twentieth century and exclusively given a late twentieth century analysis. It takes no account of the many differences in environment and upbringing that would be applicable to nineteenth century Whitechapel. Besides, profiling has a very mixed record and there are plenty of people, including some professionals, who would dispute its usefulness in catching criminals. Profiling can’t give a complete answer by itself, even its advocates would say that it should be used as one tool in the bag. Personally I’m suspicious of a technique that ever since it was applied to the Ripper case has been bent to fit a number of different suspects, according to each writer’s preference. Blame this on inexpert use if you will but perhaps that’s the point… should the likes of you and me be attempting to profile? Hmmm, well maybe you are a professional profiler for all the rest of us know! :-)
Regards, V. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 06:38 pm | | Viper,
I don't think you are really appreciating this fully. There were probably 10,000 prostitutes (full and part-time) in the East End of London, but only a hundred or so could have lived in the tiny area making up the Dorsett/Flower & Dean neighborhood.
What are the odds that a killer working the Aldgate High Street would strike FIVE women from that little area a half mile away? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?
This is no statistical fluke - the odds simply defy credibility. He knew and stalked these particular women.
I looked at the addresses of some of the less credible Ripper victims before coming to this conclusion.
McKenzie: 52 Gun St.
Wilson: 19 Maidman St.
Millwood: 8 Whites Row
Tabram: 19 George St.
These women didn't live where the "Canonical Five" lived, yet they've been discounted by most for OTHER reasons. That's a pattern my friend - all of the women who (for a variety of reasons) are widely regarded as true Ripper victims lived in one small area. All of the "doubtfuls" lived elsewhere... a pattern.
That doesn't mean that one or more of them (particularly Tabram) might not have been early victims, but he hadn't perfected his technique yet - perhaps he killed someone in a spur of the moment fashion, liked it, and then began his actual planning and stalking phase. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 08:47 pm | | Keith
Only Kelly actually lived at a somewhat permanenant address.
The others frequented various doss houses, if they could not get their doss in time to get a bed they could quite easily move on to another one that still had beds left.
Admittedly, these women developed friendships where they dossed, but these places were not a permanent address. We take a snapshot in time and find that the victims all dossed very close to each other. But are we (you) inferring too much by this?
As Viper reminded us previously, Flower & Dean had the most doss houses, and the most dossers. So, are we surprised that 3 of the victims were dossing in that street?, and that the other 2 dossed in Dorset St.?
You have raised an issue that we are all familiar with, be it significant or not, where does it lead us?
We are no nearer to finding Jack, but I totally agree with your conclusion, that Jack was a local no-body, I have said as much myself.
"Jack has yet to be named", I am not the only one who believes that either. But I dont actually consider that he had to live in either Dorset St. or F & D, just near-by is enough.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 09:17 pm | | Jack the Ripper was
David |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 09:57 pm | | Your such a tease, David :-)
Jon |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 04:19 am | | Hi Keith,
I have to agree with Viper: I'm pro-profiling, but I would caution too much against the use of it without having first research the facts and statistics. A profile is no proof.
Obviously you statistical number is just a guess, and not measured on reality. You mention a percentage of 1/100, because you think it is very unlikely that JtR would kill 5, 4, 3 or more than 5 women living in such proximity. Like others have promoted some profile on JtR depending on their pet-suspect, you have an opinion, and later on base your statistical hunch on this opinion.
Statistical reality can differ a lot with what you presume. Take for example the saying that Whitechapel and Spitalfields were known as one of the most violent area's. This knowledge lets us presume that murder was very common. While in fact murder wasn't common at all.
The spur of the moment thing against stalking: You presume he was stalking his victims because that's what a 'general' profile says about a sk. And your presumption can very well be bang on. The problem is that there is no evidence to suppose this so far as I have deducted. It may also have been the case that he searched for candidate victims on the spur of the moment, and then sollicited with a candidate. Sometimes he succeeded, the other time he didn't.
I also go along with Viper about the victim's-profile. You so far have only picked a few commonalities and forgot the rest. You postulate your theory on where they lived, where they went to the pub (it's not abnormal to take a pint in the pub around the corner) and that they were prostitutes. Then you say that there were prostitutes all over London. And on this you base your statistical hunch.
You base your hunch on a picture that doesn't take into account everything. Where would JtR have the most chance to pick up the easiest prey (very poor desperate women, who drank, and prostituted theirselves to earn their bed)? Looking at it this way, the best area to find these women was to go to Spitalfields and Whitechapel.
The problem is that this discussion is the what-was-first-the-egg-or-the-chicken one. People have tried to figure out patterns already for 112. So far no proof for either view could be found.
Greetings,
Jill |
|
|
|
|
