Originally posted by Phil H
View Post
If you deal in the objective facts, there is nothing to suggest this man must have been, or probably was, local. Nothing at all.
You're applying reason to his thought process. Does JTR seem like a reasonable man to you?
To me, I would go with him being controlled by his instincts and emotions, and therefore his actions were largely instinctive.
I can quite easily see him being led by prostitutes and taking his chances in the places where they led them. That's the nature of people who are not in control of their emotions - plenty of people today will visit prostitutes in the car down some back alley (they have no idea whether or not a police car is about to turn the corner into the alley) and are putting themselves at serious risk of losing their wives, jobs etc, but do it regardless.
I feel far too much emphasis is placed on a cunning killer. It was a mixture of luck and the nature of the East End of London that saved him, as opposed to any precautions to negate risk.
I mean, if we're to believe that Hutchinson was at the crime scene. He was a local man; he's stood around for 45 minutes and more not far from her home. Yet, no one identifies him! Now, either Hutchinson wasn't there, or the people of the East End don't make for good witnesses.
Leave a comment: