Assessing Cutbush

[Lewis C]

I disagree. Some serial killers don't kill in there immediate neighbourhood but for instance in a neighbouring district as there is less chance of them being caught. I see no reason why this couldn't apply to Jack.

Hi John,

If a person lived in Whitechapel, most of Whitechapel wouldn't be his immediate neighborhood. I think that's most likely what happened. The killer killed outside his immediate neighborhood, but not too far away. And I think he's just as likely to have lived in Spitalfields as in Whitechapel. The easternmost part of London proper is also a strong possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if there’s another serial killer who killed in such a small area and that he actually lived within that area?

[Lewis C]

I wonder if there’s another serial killer who killed in such a small area and that he actually lived within that area?

Hi Herlock,

A lot of people in this forum know more about other serial killers than I do, but I would think that the small area that the murders occurred in would be uncommon, before one even considers where the killer lived. I would expect it would be even more uncommon in the era of motor vehicles.

The area that the murders occurred in was so small that the killer could have lived just outside the area defined by drawing lines to connect the murder sites, but still have been close enough to have easy access to the area and to be able to get home quickly after the murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A lot of people in this forum know more about other serial killers than I do, but I would think that the small area that the murders occurred in would be uncommon, before one even considers where the killer lived. I would expect it would be even more uncommon in the era of motor vehicles.

The area that the murders occurred in was so small that the killer could have lived just outside the area defined by drawing lines to connect the murder sites, but still have been close enough to have easy access to the area and to be able to get home quickly after the murders.

Hi Lewis,

I agree. I wouldn’t have expected the killer to have travelled miles but within a reasonable distance. I’m not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived locally but another issue for a killer local would have been the potential, however slight, of being recognised. That he targeted that area certainly suggests that he had at least some familiarity with it.

Then again….there was Aldgate tube station for example. There is the possibility of the killer having a bolt hole somewhere. Maybe he worked in the area and had access to premises (shed/outbuilding etc)

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

I agree. I wouldn’t have expected the killer to have travelled miles but within a reasonable distance. I’m not saying that the killer couldn’t have lived locally but another issue for a killer local would have been the potential, however slight, of being recognised. That he targeted that area certainly suggests that he had at least some familiarity with it.

Then again….there was Aldgate tube station for example. There is the possibility of the killer having a bolt hole somewhere. Maybe he worked in the area and had access to premises (shed/outbuilding etc)

Yes, a bolthole is a definite possibility. The only problem is that if he had a bolt hole, we probably wouldn't know it. So there are some suspects that we know lived in the area, but for those that didn't live there, we usually can only say that he might have had a bolt hole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, a bolthole is a definite possibility. The only problem is that if he had a bolt hole, we probably wouldn't know it. So there are some suspects that we know lived in the area, but for those that didn't live there, we usually can only say that he might have had a bolt hole.

It’s why I’m always reluctant to just accept that the killer must have lived in Whitechapel. He certainly may have done especially considering that we don’t know who he was but we can’t really know if or how much he travelled to the murder sites.

[mklhawley]

From Jonathan Hainsworth....

There is no such thing as "suspectology". It's a bogus and juvenile term created by the ignorant to pre-emptively dismiss anybody who tries to show that based on avilable sources the case is solved, historically speaking, either at the time or now. If you think a person's argument/interpretation is unpersuasive, that's perfectly fair enough - but how about we jettison the reductive 'identity politics' which plagues hobbyists of this subject?