Favourite 'wildcard' suspect?

[Wickerman]

And again criminals tend not to commit crime on their own doorstep for obvious reasons.

Where have we read that the first victim is usually closest to the killers home?

[Harry D]

The murders had a pattern look at the dates if our killer lived locally he could quite easily nip out and return home very quickly there would have been more murders and there wouldn't have been two murders in one night either .someone visited Whitechapel to commit these murders this point has been forgotten about over the years also the fact that our killer lived alone is often forgotten about as well.

Some good points raised, and I can see what you're getting at, but I don't think a local man would've killed more frequently. You argue that the 'double event' wouldn't have been committed by a local, presumably because he could always kill again the next day or whenever? That's one way to look at it. Another would be that the killer was buzzing after his interruption with Stride and the urge to kill took hold, like an addict desperate for his next fix. Not to mention that the immediate aftermath would've made it difficult for him to find his next victim straight away.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where have we read that the first victim is usually closest to the killers home?

That's another myth !

ww.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Observer]

Furthermore, the timings of the murderers suggest that the killer was able to roam the streets in the early hours of the morning and not raise suspicion among family members. The police of the time realised this. One answer could be that the killer worked nights, and was in some way able to absent himself from his work. Of course the killer need not have been employed, and lived alone. I believe the police were correct in their assumption that he would not have been found in one of the doss houses of the area.

[Phil Carter]

One should never..ever..assume.

One can use logical reasoning..but in this game..that only gets accepted if it fits a personal way of thinking in another person's mind. Because for every logical reason..someone will think it a logical reason to counter it with.


Phil

[Wickerman]

One should never..ever..assume.

One can use logical reasoning..but in this game..that only gets accepted if it fits a personal way of thinking in another person's mind. Because for every logical reason..someone will think it a logical reason to counter it with.


Phil

Hi Phil.

What I think is the main problem is, some theorists draw conclusions from assumptions.

Speculations are a necessary first step in any investigation, though it is also necessary to remember, an assumption/speculation is only a question, it is never an answer.

[Wickerman]

... Of course the killer need not have been employed, and lived alone. I believe the police were correct in their assumption that he would not have been found in one of the doss houses of the area.

Agreed.
Though some feel convinced that police interest in Doss houses suggests they believed the killer would be found therein.

On the contrary, the Doss house was a resource for the police to tap into the eyes and ears of the general population, that is why they called there.
Knocking door-to-door they may touch upon 10-20 people per household, but a lodging-house gave them a hit of 2-300 people at a time, all collected under one roof.

The lodging-house was like a town hall gathering of the populace who's daily travels & experiences ranged all over Whitechapel.
Police interest in lodging-houses was for the potential information they contained.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

What I think is the main problem is, some theorists draw conclusions from assumptions.

Speculations are a necessary first step in any investigation, though it is also necessary to remember, an assumption/speculation is only a question, it is never an answer.

Hello Jon,

Then one has the problem of what thinking is logically acceptable to be a possible.
Again..If the reasoning isn't accepted by the reader..is it because the reader has their own set ideas to start with?


Phil

[Scott Nelson]

What I think is the main problem is, some theorists draw conclusions from assumptions.

Yes, I do it all the time. It's fun.

[Observer]

Hello Jon,

Then one has the problem of what thinking is logically acceptable to be a possible.
Again..If the reasoning isn't accepted by the reader..is it because the reader has their own set ideas to start with?


Phil

That's what it's all about. Most posters in this forum are so set in their ways, the majority of these have a pet suspect of course, even sensible logical suggestion is rejected out of hand, they will not give an inch. Regarding the timings of the Whitechapel atrocities, they are written in stone. As I said the perpetrator, should he have been a family man was able to be absent from his home in the early hours of the morning and not arouse suspicion. If he did arouse suspicion and was reported by a family member then nothing came of this. The other alternative is he was a single man who came and went as he pleased. I know the above is stating the bleedin obvious but there you have it.

[Observer]

Agreed.
Though some feel convinced that police interest in Doss houses suggests they believed the killer would be found therein.

On the contrary, the Doss house was a resource for the police to tap into the eyes and ears of the general population, that is why they called there.
Knocking door-to-door they may touch upon 10-20 people per household, but a lodging-house gave them a hit of 2-300 people at a time, all collected under one roof.

The lodging-house was like a town hall gathering of the populace who's daily travels & experiences ranged all over Whitechapel.
Police interest in lodging-houses was for the potential information they contained.

The victims lived in the Doss Houses, its logical that the police took an interest in them. When atrocities of the magnitude of the Whitechapel murders occur, a witch hunt follows. The police would have been inundated with data coming in from all around. Unfortunately, this can hinder an operation, as it did in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I do it all the time. It's fun.

Nah - you just assume it is.

[Phil Carter]

That's what it's all about. Most posters in this forum are so set in their ways, the majority of these have a pet suspect of course, even sensible logical suggestion is rejected out of hand, they will not give an inch. Regarding the timings of the Whitechapel atrocities, they are written in stone. As I said the perpetrator, should he have been a family man was able to be absent from his home in the early hours of the morning and not arouse suspicion. If he did arouse suspicion and was reported by a family member then nothing came of this. The other alternative is he was a single man who came and went as he pleased. I know the above is stating the bleedin obvious but there you have it.

Hello Observer,

Agreed..but in the case of the "bleedin' obvious" you correctly refer to..you have yourself already made an assumption as fact. That ONE man is the sole killer..each cannot be proven nor on fact, disproven.

The point I am (badly..I admit) trying to make is this..

To my mind..The only way in which one can justifiably maintain a neutral position is by not accepting what one is told is fact when it is only assumed fact.
Example 1. How many were killed by the same hand?
Example 2. How many women comprise of the Whitechapel murder series?
Example 3. How many different weapons were used/involved in Examples 1 and 2.?

Of course..One could just go on and on and on. Like a pyramid..We don't even know what the top point is..let alone all the stones underneath it that make up the structure we see today. There is a myriad of possibilities. Some stronger..Some weaker..but possibilities they are.

My own pyramid..like many others... involves more than one murderer. That splinters into varying groups depending on which victims are taken out of the one man equation. That will differ from opinion to opinion.

So we all and up with different pyramids..based on our preference to differing details. ...All the way down the list line.
There can never be uniformity.
Mathematically therefore there are hundreds of thousands of possibilities when combined.
Without the evidence we lack. ..totally..no one person..or persons. ..plural..can be labelled as a murderer of these women.
And as I have repeatedly said for many years..The ONLY thing that will ever advance knowledge to a nearer position of certainty on the subject..is the emergence of original Home Office , Met Police and City Police documents that have hitherto been unavailable to us today due to a varying clutch of reasons. Loss, possible destruction, pilfering, stealing..whatever.

It is sad..but that is the way it is. For what PC Joe Bloggs wrote on half a metre of toilet paper in dripping candle wax in 19 hundred odd..makes not a bone of truthful fact appear.

I don't like it either. But there you go. Until that time..If ever..supposition, assumption, guesswork and reasoned logic is all we have..and nobody can agree about that lot because of their personal beliefs..pre meditated if you like.

The frightening thing is....even if we actually had evidence that could nail ONE victim's killer to the cross...If would not mean that killer was responsible for the rest.

and if that happened...The age old multi murdering killer theory...comes under threat. So does the epithet.."Jack the Ripper".

Example. Liz Strides former boyfriend is revealed as HER killer.
Then 50% of the people believing in the C5 Jack have one heck of a problem. THEIR JtR didn't exist.


So we are left with the question.

Who wants any of the mystery solved? Many want the mystery to continue ad infinitum.

I'd like to see it all cleared up. It won't be. But I'd like it.

Others perhaps dread the thought. I don't know.



Phil

[Observer]

Hi Phil

Good post. I can't really argue with the above there will never be uniformity. And yes when you look at it that way I suppose I too am set in my ways, that is, I can not look beyond one individual murdering the victims of the canon, possibly more. Would I like the mystery solved, most definitely. Do I believe the mystery will be solved? Most definately not.

[Harry D]

Who wants any of the mystery solved?

Moi certainly would. It's driving me insane that we'll never know.