Which Suspects are Viable candidates

[jason_c]

Everyone has a different criteria of who they find viable and what evidence they find relevant. The suspects I find most credible are ones with at least one(preferably more than one) of the following:
1. A contemporary suspect 2. A local
3. Working class
4. Proven mental instability

Suspects I find less credible:
1. Most suspects put forward by modern authors, especially if they do not meet any of the above criteria.

[mpriestnall]

Ok, but let me pose this question.

Are we here to create a plot with the most intrigue, or to theorize based on what the evidence suggests?

The way I see it, if we are to consider two apparently separate individuals working together, then it is necessary to show some connection between the two. Either their abode, place of employment, local pub, club, etc. much like how the police would approach the mystery today.

Are you researching the subject towards this end Martyn?

We are here to theorize based on what the evidence suggests and that two people were involved in
the murder of the Miller's Court victim.

For someone so well dressed to appear at Miller's Court was probably quite exceptional.
Therefore it's more likely than not he was involved with the murder. Otherwise it's a big coincidence that such a well-dressed person
was seen with the victim (alleged victim for me) and not be involved.

But it's not very likely he was the actual murderer:

1. A murderer in that environment would dress down to fit in, and not draw attention to himself by being so well dressed.
2. Post the murder he would expect to be covered in blood. A bloodied well-dressed gentlemen would be even more noticeable.
3. Therefore another person commited the murder.

And hence, by this reason, if not evidence, the murder was a two man job.

if we are to consider two apparently separate individuals working together, then it is necessary to show some connection between the two. Either their abode, place of employment, local pub, club, etc. much like how the police would approach the mystery today.

JTR, Aman, and Kelly were connected. I only focus on the C5. I think 1 or victims were targeted and the others
may have been added to disguise the murderer(s) / victim connection.

Are you researching the subject towards this end Martyn?

Yes.

[mpriestnall]

Deleted.

[Abby Normal]

I thought I replied to everyone's replies last night, but there was an interruption: I was unable to reply to comments for some time because of a query regarding a possible proxy server being used by my Internet service provider.

I don't know whether that has anything to do with my not answering everyone.

Sorry if I didn't respond.

Yes you're right that I said I was holding something back for later, but I think I made it clear that that related to another crime, i.e the Whitechapel Murderer committed an earlier crime.

Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the person who committed that crime either!

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think I know the name of the suspect.

I don't.

Hi PI
Thanks for clarifying. looking forward to hearing your ideas on the ripper committing an earlier crime when your ready-sounds intriguing!
again I apologize for my misunderstanding.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI
No you didnt make it clear, quite the opposite-Im sorry but your posts implied you had a named suspect, but were just holding that back. you kept referring to a Him and a he and even responded to trevor about holding something, which seemed like his name, back. I also directly asked you "who" and you didnt respond. both me and al thought you had a named suspect and im sure others did also by the way you were wording your posts. If you dont have a named suspect, but just a type, that you are referring to, then I apologize for my part.

But so everyone is clear Ill ask one more time-do you have a named suspect in mind?

I thought I replied to everyone's replies last night, but there was an interruption: I was unable to reply to comments for some time because of a query regarding a possible proxy server being used by my Internet service provider.

I don't know whether that has anything to do with my not answering everyone.

Sorry if I didn't respond.

Yes you're right that I said I was holding something back for later, but I think I made it clear that that related to another crime, i.e the Whitechapel Murderer committed an earlier crime.

Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the person who committed that crime either!

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think I know the name of the suspect.

I don't.

[Abby Normal]

'A friendly bit of advice, if you have a suspect, just name them, or explain your theory...Your current approach has a 'whiff of Pierre' about it, and seriously, it annoys the hell out of people... so who's this sailor? How did you reach that conclusion? What ship do you think he sailed on?'

I refer you to other posts of mine, in which I explained how I reached the conclusion that the murderer was a sailor.

I'm surprised that the fact that I haven't named the suspect, or the ship I think he sailed on, should 'annoy the hell out of' you or that you think it should 'annoy the hell out of' anyone else.

I have already stated that I don't know the name of the ship.

I think I have also made it clear that I don't know the identity of the suspect.

I'm genuinely amazed that you think there's anything annoying about anything I've written.

Hi PI
No you didnt make it clear, quite the opposite-Im sorry but your posts implied you had a named suspect, but were just holding that back. you kept referring to a Him and a he and even responded to trevor about holding something, which seemed like his name, back. I also directly asked you "who" and you didnt respond. both me and al thought you had a named suspect and im sure others did also by the way you were wording your posts. If you dont have a named suspect, but just a type, that you are referring to, then I apologize for my part.

But so everyone is clear Ill ask one more time-do you have a named suspect in mind?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yeah, I have to say I think you've been a bit harshly treated. I didn't get the impression you were playing games.

Your theory is the killer was an unidentified sailor who completed his magnum opus at Miller's Court and set out for distant shores? Simple.

Yes.

I think I used the word masterpiece, as it is rather a long time since I last studied Latin.

I think one of the problems with this case is that so many innocent people have been named as the murderer, and it is practically impossible to have a conversation about the case without someone being named, that it is simply assumed that anyone who claims to know anything about it MUST have a name in mind!

I think I have a pretty good idea who the murderer was - someone who was wanted for another crime - but as he was never caught, I don't know his name!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

'A friendly bit of advice, if you have a suspect, just name them, or explain your theory...Your current approach has a 'whiff of Pierre' about it, and seriously, it annoys the hell out of people... so who's this sailor? How did you reach that conclusion? What ship do you think he sailed on?'

I refer you to other posts of mine, in which I explained how I reached the conclusion that the murderer was a sailor.

I'm surprised that the fact that I haven't named the suspect, or the ship I think he sailed on, should 'annoy the hell out of' you or that you think it should 'annoy the hell out of' anyone else.

I have already stated that I don't know the name of the ship.

I think I have also made it clear that I don't know the identity of the suspect.

I'm genuinely amazed that you think there's anything annoying about anything I've written.

Well, apologies for the misunderstanding, at the time of posting it wasn't totally clear, but that's not an issue now. Thanks.

[Harry D]

'A friendly bit of advice, if you have a suspect, just name them, or explain your theory...Your current approach has a 'whiff of Pierre' about it, and seriously, it annoys the hell out of people... so who's this sailor? How did you reach that conclusion? What ship do you think he sailed on?'

I refer you to other posts of mine, in which I explained how I reached the conclusion that the murderer was a sailor.

I'm surprised that the fact that I haven't named the suspect, or the ship I think he sailed on, should 'annoy the hell out of' you or that you think it should 'annoy the hell out of' anyone else.

I have already stated that I don't know the name of the ship.

I think I have also made it clear that I don't know the identity of the suspect.

I'm genuinely amazed that you think there's anything annoying about anything I've written.

Yeah, I have to say I think you've been a bit harshly treated. I didn't get the impression you were playing games.

Your theory is the killer was an unidentified sailor who completed his magnum opus at Miller's Court and set out for distant shores? Simple.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

'A friendly bit of advice, if you have a suspect, just name them, or explain your theory...Your current approach has a 'whiff of Pierre' about it, and seriously, it annoys the hell out of people... so who's this sailor? How did you reach that conclusion? What ship do you think he sailed on?'

I refer you to other posts of mine, in which I explained how I reached the conclusion that the murderer was a sailor.

I'm surprised that the fact that I haven't named the suspect, or the ship I think he sailed on, should 'annoy the hell out of' you or that you think it should 'annoy the hell out of' anyone else.

I have already stated that I don't know the name of the ship.

I think I have also made it clear that I don't know the identity of the suspect.

I'm genuinely amazed that you think there's anything annoying about anything I've written.

[FISHY1118]

I tend to agree with Al and Abby on this one .Newbies, Shissssh

[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.

[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]

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

who did?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

really? where was he?

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