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?

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

I see having a bolt hole as a different situation to living in the area. The former implies that the person involved uses the bolthole specifically as a means of accessing an area for the purpose of acquiring a victim. Living in the area would indicate involvement in the local community, particularly the pubs that formed the focus of communal recreation, and selecting victims from within that community. However, I do agree that we can't, for the present, know if he was a commuter or a marauder.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

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?

I don't need to use the term "suspectology" to dismiss the idea that the case has been solved. To me, "suspectology" just means the study of the reasons for and against various people being suspects in the case, and that certainly exists, even if someone does want to argue that the case has been solved. And I don't know what identity politics have to do with anything.

[The Rookie Detective]

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?

Not a pretentious patronising comment in the slightest then, haha!

The somewhat misguided reliance in the upper echelons of police personnel who were involved with the case, is an issue which has plagued it since day one.

"Suspectology" was born out of the need to try and explain away the reason for certain officers coming across as obtrusive, evasive and ambiguous.

This includes the likes of MacNagthen, Anderson and Swanson.


It is precisely their failings as officers of the law that enabled the concept of "Suspectology" to be born in the first place.

For the term to be labeled as "bogus" and "juvenile" is simply a means to put down those who have spent many decades trying to clear up the mess and fill the gaps left by the Ripper equivalent of the 3 stooges named above.

The case was never solved and to claim otherwise is to support an archaic mindset that no longer holds sway amongst the majority of Ripperolgoists who recognise that Suspectology is a crucial part of the case; despite it being a dirty word to some. A necessary evil as it were.

Anderson in particular was a man who was so determined to retain control, that he made out he knew who the killer was all along when he penned his memoirs.
Despite apparently knowing the culprit, he still chose to not name the killer.
But this wasn't because he wanted to protect the public by claiming they no longer needed to know the killer's identity; it was because he wanted to be in control.
A man who didn't have the decency to admit defeat, and chose instead to patronise those beneath him, by not giving them the truth as to the killer's identity.

A callous and cold decision that only helped to self-serve and paint himself in a good light.

Swanson then backed his former boss by jumping on the bandwagon and backing the same agenda to paint himself in a better light.

And of course, MacNagthen's faux "list" of suspects acted as the very first form of "Suspectology."


An irony which isn't lost on the post above.

[Lewis C]

Mr. Hainsworth seems to be implying that the case has been solved. Is that really his position?

[The Rookie Detective]

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?

Not a pretentious patronising comment in the slightest then, haha!

The somewhat misguided reliance in the upper echelons of police personnel who were involved with the case, is an issue which has plagued it since day one.

"Suspectology" was born out of the need to try and explain away the reason for certain officers coming across as obtrusive, evasive and ambiguous.

This includes the likes of MacNagthen, Anderson and Swanson.


It is precisely their failings as officers of the law that enabled the concept of "Suspectology" to be born in the first place.

For the term to be labeled as "bogus" and "juvenile" is simply a means to put down those who have spent many decades trying to clear up the mess and fill the gaps left by the Ripper equivalent of the 3 stooges named above.

The case was never solved and to claim otherwise is to support an archaic mindset that no longer holds sway amongst the majority of Ripperolgoists who recognise that Suspectology is a crucial part of the case; despite it being a dirty word to some. A necessary evil as it were.

Anderson in particular was a man who was so determined to retain control, that he made out he knew who the killer was all along when he penned his memoirs.
Despite apparently knowing the culprit, he still chose to not name the killer.
But this wasn't because he wanted to protect the public by claiming they no longer needed to know the killer's identity; it was because he wanted to be in control.
A man who didn't have the decency to admit defeat, and chose instead to patronise those beneath him, by not giving them the truth as to the killer's identity.

A callous and cold decision that only helped to self-serve and paint himself in a good light.

Swanson then backed his former boss by jumping on the bandwagon and backing the same agenda to paint himself in a better light.

And of course, MacNagthen's faux "list" of suspects acted as the very first form of "Suspectology."


An irony which isn't lost on the post above.