Which Suspects are Viable candidates

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I suppose that Deeming and Chapman might be considered Black Widows in that the murders for which they were executed were all family members. Dave's suspect, Sutton, is alleged to have had a motive in that he was allegedly being blackmailed. However, my thought was towards a serial killer that murdered family members because he/she wanted them out of the way (motive), and strangers as well. I've come across one case - Fred and Rosemary West, the English married couple who murdered at least a dozen young women, including several of their own daughters. I suppose the other consideration in the cases of Bury, Deeming and Chapman is that the wives may have found out about their JtR activities and had to be silenced, thus providing a motive.

Although it has been suggested that Jack may have lived in the same area as his victims and possibly known them, there doesn't seem to be a motive other than the psychotic desire to kill and mutilate women, which is entirely different to the motivation driving family, borders associates etc.

What did you think of the French Toast Lechmere video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2S...TheFrenchToast)

Best regards, George

Had a view of the video. Overall it was interesting. They go on about Cross/Lechmere leaving for work at 3:15, but I believe his testimony is that he left closer to 3:30, which makes a big difference in the picture he presents (it creates the "gap", but there is no gap if he left at 3:30 and most seem to accept that 3:30 is when he did leave). They also spend too much time on the Lloyd's article, particularly as they initially conclude that it appears the reporter (in their view) embellished the details to make the story better. If they think that, they should just not mention it again as they have said it's tainted.

Also, I think the idea that either PC Mizen or Cross/Lechmere must have lied about Mizen being wanted by a policeman overlooks a 3rd, and in my view, more probable option. That Cross/Lechmere and Paul indicated that PC Mizen was needed in Buck's Row (meaning by Polly type thing), and when he arrives PC Neil is there and sends him for the ambulance. Under those circumstances it seems very probably that PC Mizen could later misremember being told he was needed by a policeman; a simple memory error with regards to the exact wording. I don't think either party is "covering up" anything, rather PC Mizen just misquotes what he was told based upon what happened that evening.

Finally, I think the routes they show for PC Neil's beat is truncated and they've left out quite a bit of it. Still, that's because I'm interested in those types of details, but for illustration purposes of how PC Neil and the two carmen just miss each other I suppose it works. Still, it rather looks like PC Neil would have actually been to the north rather than to the south.

So, while there are a few bits that could be improved, I've certainly seen far worse.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Had a view of the video. Overall it was interesting. They go on about Cross/Lechmere leaving for work at 3:15, but I believe his testimony is that he left closer to 3:30, which makes a big difference in the picture he presents (it creates the "gap", but there is no gap if he left at 3:30 and most seem to accept that 3:30 is when he did leave). They also spend too much time on the Lloyd's article, particularly as they initially conclude that it appears the reporter (in their view) embellished the details to make the story better. If they think that, they should just not mention it again as they have said it's tainted.

Also, I think the idea that either PC Mizen or Cross/Lechmere must have lied about Mizen being wanted by a policeman overlooks a 3rd, and in my view, more probable option. That Cross/Lechmere and Paul indicated that PC Mizen was needed in Buck's Row (meaning by Polly type thing), and when he arrives PC Neil is there and sends him for the ambulance. Under those circumstances it seems very probably that PC Mizen could later misremember being told he was needed by a policeman; a simple memory error with regards to the exact wording. I don't think either party is "covering up" anything, rather PC Mizen just misquotes what he was told based upon what happened that evening.

Finally, I think the routes they show for PC Neil's beat is truncated and they've left out quite a bit of it. Still, that's because I'm interested in those types of details, but for illustration purposes of how PC Neil and the two carmen just miss each other I suppose it works. Still, it rather looks like PC Neil would have actually been to the north rather than to the south.

So, while there are a few bits that could be improved, I've certainly seen far worse.

- Jeff

I still find it amazing Jeff, that despite lots of work being carried out on Neil's possible beat, that so many go with a beat that simply does not fit what Neil says about the time it took, where he went to and the article in the Echo.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jon,

Actually, there are a number of serial killers who stopped, or had pauses in their killings. Gary Ridgeway, Joseph DeAngelo, Lonnie Franklin, Jr. and Dennis Rader all stopped and were arrested 10 or more years later. It is believed that the Zodiac had gaps of years between his murders.

Are there any statistics on how many convicted serial killers had wives or family members included in their body count? Don't serial killers, by definition, confine their victims to people they don't know? Deeming murdered two wives and five children, Chapman three wives and Bury one wife. Does that fit the profile of a serial killer?

Cheers, George

I agree.

Serial murderers stop killing when opportunities become scarce and self-preservation becomes uppermost in their minds.

I would add only that I have long been convinced that everything about the Miller's Court Murder points to its having been planned as the murderer's last murder in the series.

I am mystified as to why so many people think something must have happened to him to prevent him from killing again.

I don't think he was still in the country that Christmas, either.

[JeffHamm]

I still find it amazing Jeff, that despite lots of work being carried out on Neil's possible beat, that so many go with a beat that simply does not fit what Neil says about the time it took, where he went to and the article in the Echo.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Yah, and while many may view the work on the beats as being pedantic, I think they are crucially important pieces of information. We have so much conflict in details and timings given the nature of human recollection that if we at least can work out the patrol route we can start to estimate positions given we generally know how long their patrols took on the nights in question. From those estimations we can independently assess the witnesses estimates of times. The more patrols we have in the area, then it even may allow us to see which escape routes are unlikely as he would have been seen (on the presumption that any male seen by the police leaving the area would later be reported, but the police statements are generally that they saw nobody).

I think suspect focused presentations are so keen on the solution end of the problem that things like the beats are seen as irrelevant details. To me, you can provide a solution unless you first fully understand the parameters of the problem.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

I agree.

Serial murderers stop killing when opportunities become scarce and self-preservation becomes uppermost in their minds.

I would add only that I have long been convinced that everything about the Miller's Court Murder points to its having been planned as the murderer's last murder in the series.

I am mystified as to why so many people think something must have happened to him to prevent him from killing again.

I don't think he was still in the country that Christmas, either.

really? where was he?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I agree.

Serial murderers stop killing when opportunities become scarce and self-preservation becomes uppermost in their minds.

I would add only that I have long been convinced that everything about the Miller's Court Murder points to its having been planned as the murderer's last murder in the series.

I am mystified as to why so many people think something must have happened to him to prevent him from killing again.

I don't think he was still in the country that Christmas, either.

Hi PI, you throw out a few interesting scenarios there, what is your evidence for these very interesting views?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI, you throw out a few interesting scenarios there, what is your evidence for these very interesting views?

The Nazis are an obvious example, with so many of them going into hiding or changing their identities and living in obscurity.

It was only after 'Bible John' committed a third murder at the same dance hall in Glasgow that panic ensued, and not only did he never murder there again but it seems he never committed another murder anywhere.

The London nudes or Hammersmith nudes Murders is another good example.
It was only after the penultimate murder that the police got a description of the murderer and an associate.
A friend of the victim who was the last innocent person to see her alive gave a description of both to the police.
She reported that two men in a vehicle tried to run her over near her home, shortly after the story appeared in the Evening Standard.
She was also roughed up and warned that she should keep her mouth shut as she was leaving a jazz club.
The murderer - who was obviously not alone - was obviously rattled and committed only one more murder, this time for the first time not dumping the body anywhere, but leaving the body in the same place that he had stored earlier victims.

I believe something similar happened with the Whitechapel Murderer, that he became very worried that if he did things the way he had previously, he would be caught.
He therefore committed his final murder indoors, intending it to be the last in the series.

I think he left the country shortly afterwards on a ship.

[harry]

The start of your last line,Investigator,'"I think",explains why there are no valid suspects.Accusers think,theorise,,believe,but they do not know.
Not that I believe it is useless to have opinions however they are expressed,but it helps if some factual information was forthcoming to form a basis for those opinions.
Yes JTR could have left by ship.Which ship?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yah, and while many may view the work on the beats as being pedantic, I think they are crucially important pieces of information. We have so much conflict in details and timings given the nature of human recollection that if we at least can work out the patrol route we can start to estimate positions given we generally know how long their patrols took on the nights in question. From those estimations we can independently assess the witnesses estimates of times. The more patrols we have in the area, then it even may allow us to see which escape routes are unlikely as he would have been seen (on the presumption that any male seen by the police leaving the area would later be reported, but the police statements are generally that they saw nobody).

I think suspect focused presentations are so keen on the solution end of the problem that things like the beats are seen as irrelevant details. To me, you can provide a solution unless you first fully understand the parameters of the problem.

- Jeff

I have not been able to identify the beat on the western side of Brady Street, North of the junction with bucks row, but I think in have most of the others covered

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The start of your last line,Investigator,'"I think",explains why there are no valid suspects.Accusers think,theorise,,believe,but they do not know.
Not that I believe it is useless to have opinions however they are expressed,but it helps if some factual information was forthcoming to form a basis for those opinions.
Yes JTR could have left by ship.Which ship?

Yes.

You are right; I don't know.

But I think I have reasonable grounds to think so and it all stems from the evidence that the murderer was a sailor.

Sorry that I can't tell you which ship, but he had plenty to choose from in his line of work.

When people deduce from the fact that the murders stopped after just five that something must have happened to the murderer, they are looking at things in the wrong way.

Nothing actually happened to him.

He just decided to call it quits and leave the way he had come.

[JeffHamm]

I have not been able to identify the beat on the western side of Brady Street, North of the junction with bucks row, but I think in have most of the others covered

Nice work. I think PC Neil's beat has been narrowed down to a few viable options, with some fine details unclear, but having played with a few of the variations the same conclusion comes out; namely that Cross/Lechmere and Paul could leave the scene and not cross paths with PC Neil on their way to finding PC Mizen. Knowing the details of other beats in the area, though, might provide some constraints on what route JtR would have available to him to get out of the area and not be spotted and later remembered as "I saw a fellow on X street about that time", which might happen if he was the only person around. I tend to think heading down onto Whitechapel was probably what he did, simply because at that point he is just another person on a main street so unlikely to stand out (on the assumption that road was somewhat busy with others going to work as well of course). Seeing the relative positions of various patrols might also point to different possible scenarios, such as "he could have left via this route, provided the murder is completed by time X" and so forth, suggesting a few different possible times for when the murder may have occurred. Generally the discussions are around the idea that she was killed very close to Cross/Lechmere's arrival, leading one either to conclude his involvement or that JtR was interrupted (similar to the interruption idea that comes up in the Stride case, and the Eddowes case via PC Harvey and/or Morris opening the door). To me, that seems to suggest that interruption in Stride's case is less of an exception but rather the norm for JtR - and if so, it speaks to someone with very poor risk assessment and may therefore be more indicative of a psychotic rather than psychopathic offender. Not definitive, of course, but I'm not convinced JtR was all that clever but rather had luck on his side. Of course, he can't be so psychotic that he's completely unaware of his surroundings, but choosing to mutilate in public despite constant interruptions doesn't really point to a clever planner in my view. But I digress.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

really? where was he?

I think he left on a ship as part of his work.

[Abby Normal]

I think he left on a ship as part of his work.

who did?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yes.

You are right; I don't know.

But I think I have reasonable grounds to think so and it all stems from the evidence that the murderer was a sailor.

Sorry that I can't tell you which ship, but he had plenty to choose from in his line of work.

When people deduce from the fact that the murders stopped after just five that something must have happened to the murderer, they are looking at things in the wrong way.

Nothing actually happened to him.

He just decided to call it quits and leave the way he had come.

Hello and welcome to the boards.

A friendly bit of advice, if you have a suspect, just name them, or explain your theory. Nothing winds people up more than a new poster who makes points and claims but never actually backs it up, hiding behind the "I know this, but I can't tell you" excuse. If your theory isn't ready, ask for help (God knows there's enough knowledge collectively), if it's pretty solid, share it.

Your current approach has a 'whiff of Pierre' about it, and seriously, it annoys the hell out of people. We're always happy to hear a new angle and see where it leads, so who's this sailor? How did you reach that conclusion? What ship do you think he sailed on?

All the best.

[Abby Normal]

Hello and welcome to the boards.

A friendly bit of advice, if you have a suspect, just name them, or explain your theory. Nothing winds people up more than a new poster who makes points and claims but never actually backs it up, hiding behind the "I know this, but I can't tell you" excuse. If your theory isn't ready, ask for help (God knows there's enough knowledge collectively), if it's pretty solid, share it.

Your current approach has a 'whiff of Pierre' about it, and seriously, it annoys the hell out of people. We're always happy to hear a new angle and see where it leads, so who's this sailor? How did you reach that conclusion? What ship do you think he sailed on?

All the best.

bingo al
i was about to post the exact same thing. and its especially exasperating with along with that, PI is right off the bat attacking other peoples suspects. its bad enough when posters that have favored suspects of their own who fervently go after other peoples favored valid suspects, but doubly worse when someone does it but wont even name who their own is suspect, thus avoiding any criticism of their own.