JTR - Cunning, Careful, or Lucky?

[caz]

A Private Affair

Good post, Mondegreen - one of the best and certainly most relevant on this thread.

I always come back to my argument that as long as the killer did not stand out from the other sorts who were out and about at night, engaging with the local unfortunates or just trying their luck with any unaccompanied females, he could pick and choose his opportunities, and the only real difference would be that he didn't always leave the women alive. As long as he wasn't seen in the act, or stopped and searched immediately afterwards, how would anyone be any the wiser? Going off to a dark and semi-secluded place for a spot of cheap sexual relief was a private affair, and countless regular users must have 'got away with it' time after time without anyone but the woman concerned being aware of it.

So for me, the killer only had to be slightly more cunning, careful and lucky than the average punter, and only then for the few minutes on each occasion when he was incriminating himself by what he was doing, or what he was carrying, or the state of his clothing if noticeably bloodstained.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He was probably unlikely to have been caught. Kelly indoors - would have been unlucky if someone had wandered in.

Hi FM,

And if they had - well, he had a large knife to take care of that eventuality. Could he also have put some furniture up against the door while he was working, to deter potential visitors? Nobody would have been surprised, if this was common practice by the inhabitants after turning in for the night.

Eddowes in a square where very dark and would have heard the sound of shoes on the pavement - would have been away before anyone got within distance.

Which is what seems to have happened. He was away before anyone arrived on the scene.

Stride is the odd one out in that he could easily have been caught red handed in that instance.

But then it would easily explain his need or desire for a swift kill and away.

And, by the time people had gone in search of the police, whistles were blown, everyone ran around for a bit, it was a bit late to start a search as Jack would have been 15 minutes down the street at least and out of their grasp.

Exactly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mondegreen]

Good post, Mondegreen - one of the best and certainly most relevant on this thread.

I always come back to my argument that as long as the killer did not stand out from the other sorts who were out and about at night, engaging with the local unfortunates or just trying their luck with any unaccompanied females, he could pick and choose his opportunities, and the only real difference would be that he didn't always leave the women alive. As long as he wasn't seen in the act, or stopped and searched immediately afterwards, how would anyone be any the wiser? Going off to a dark and semi-secluded place for a spot of cheap sexual relief was a private affair, and countless regular users must have 'got away with it' time after time without anyone but the woman concerned being aware of it.

So for me, the killer only had to be slightly more cunning, careful and lucky than the average punter, and only then for the few minutes on each occasion when he was incriminating himself by what he was doing, or what he was carrying, or the state of his clothing if noticeably bloodstained.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you!

Another thing that should be taken into account was how much risk there really was of him being caught while committing murder. People have mentioned that some of the sites where the murders took place had windows and doors so he risked being caught. That's true, but in my opinion, only to an extent. If someone looked out of the window, unless they looked at very specific moments, they would have seen a man and a woman in a dark corner. Probably not such an unusual sight. It would also have been dark, most likely, so they may not even have noticed anything odd going on. Even if they did, it could still have given him enough time to escape and made it harder for them to identify his features with some certainty.

I have a question, too. Are the witness accounts we have complete? That is to say, were there originally more details in the witness accounts that were given to the police? If not, then I think it goes to show how hard it would have been to get a good look at someone's face. Assuming that some of the accounts may have been given out of paranoia or in a bid for attention, if some of them truly describe men or a man who were sighted near the victims or in the general area, whether the person or people described were the Ripper, the lack of details stand out to me. Most of what we have in the way of descriptions are things that would have been noticeable from a distance or in dim lightning (build, age range, facial hair) and not precise things about facial characteristics.

[caz]

Hi Mondegreen,

I certainly think the killer must have benefited from so many varying descriptions of men seen with a victim or near a crime scene. He only had to wear ordinary clothing and, if he had the means, different coats or hats on separate outings, and he would not have stood out or been connected by witness descriptions to more than one or two murders at most.

If he had any particularly distinguishing physical features (eg the 'awkward gait' or 'blotchy face', which get more than one mention but don't seem to have led to any significant arrest), he'd have been wise to avoid these being on view once too often, but apart from that he'd have been fine, given how poor eye witness testimony can be, now as then.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Our killer might not have been to bothered about anyone seeing him shortly before or after the murders because he didn't live locally so he wouldn't have to worry about anyone recognizing him.Also the fact he was in an area where potential witnesses to his crimes would not come forward because they themselves were up to no good quite possible someone saw our killer and never came forward.