Favourite 'wildcard' suspect?

[John G]

Hi Caz,
However, with the exception of Polly Nichols none of the victims were found immediately, and therefore the alarm wouldn't have been raised immediately. This is even more so with Mary Kelly. The killer could have gone home and eaten a full breakfast and had a couple of pints before her body was discovered!

Yes, there would have been a certain amount of danger when, after Mitre Square (before Eddowes was found) he headed back to Whitechapel and the eye of the storm, with police searching for suspicious males in the wake of the Stride killing.

However, we don't know where Jack lived, and with the help of shortcuts and ill-lit streets, he could have got home without catching anyone's attention. I think we forget sometimes (I know I do) what a tiny area these murders encompassed, how quickly people could have walked from street to street to their homes and just how dark it all was.

Cheers, Rosella.

Hi Rosella,

It's remarkable what a killer can get away with if they remain calm and controlled. Robert Napper murdered Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in front of her young child. He slit her throat and stabbed her 49 times, on a summer's day in broad daylight. He then walked calmly away, drenched in blood and still carrying the knife. However, no one saw or heard anything, despite the fact that dozens of people were criss-crossing the common, including the Commissioner's own wife!

[Sherlock Houses]

Peter J Harpick

[Rosella]

Hi Rosella,

But once out of the immediate crime zone, a non-local killer was very unlikely to be stopped and searched unless he was heavily blood stained, as nobody he came across would yet be aware that another murder had been committed. All he had to do was wear dark clothing and walk smartly, avoiding getting too close to other people or light sources. Heavy bloodstains would have been riskier for a local killer whose lodgings had to be reached via streets within the immediate crime zone, where the alarm could be raised at any second, and local police senses were already heightened.

Think of the immediate crime zone as a circle, with the main roads surrounding it. Think of the murders happening very close to these main roads. Then think of a killer who lives right in the centre of the circle, and one who lives anywhere outside it. The distance to safety could easily be longer for the local man, and arguably more dangerous.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
However, with the exception of Polly Nichols none of the victims were found immediately, and therefore the alarm wouldn't have been raised immediately. This is even more so with Mary Kelly. The killer could have gone home and eaten a full breakfast and had a couple of pints before her body was discovered!

Yes, there would have been a certain amount of danger when, after Mitre Square (before Eddowes was found) he headed back to Whitechapel and the eye of the storm, with police searching for suspicious males in the wake of the Stride killing.

However, we don't know where Jack lived, and with the help of shortcuts and ill-lit streets, he could have got home without catching anyone's attention. I think we forget sometimes (I know I do) what a tiny area these murders encompassed, how quickly people could have walked from street to street to their homes and just how dark it all was.

Cheers, Rosella.

[John G]

Hi John,

This all makes perfect sense, but similar arguments can be made the other way round. If the streets were too hot for a commuter killer, why would they not be equally hot for a local one? What was the problem with a local killer shifting himself to those other East End districts, if he found it impossible to control his murderous urges while the heat was still on? If this was the killer's comfort zone (eg if he had found it the best place in the past for cheap, anonymous sex), he may have had no interest in trying his luck elsewhere, whether he lived and worked close to his victims or not so close.

Also, the ease with which he was able to escape detection could have been down to encountering each victim on a main road and accompanying her to a quieter location just off it, then simply retracing the few steps alone and being out of Spitalfields, and out of any danger of being searched, almost before the body was discovered and the alarm raised. It could have been as quick, and possibly quicker, for an outsider to leave the immediate search area via one of these main thoroughfares (eg Commercial St or Rd, Whitechapel Rd), when you consider an insider's escape route would have kept him right there on the hottest streets until he could reach his own doorstep.

Taking the apron from Eddowes and not dumping it until he reached Goulston Street could have been a ruse to make everyone think he was a local man. This has always smacked to me of diversion tactics, rather than giving away a clue to where he was heading. The risk of using this route was the same, whether he had to use it because it was his way home, or chose to use it, before disappearing out of the district, possibly via Liverpool Street.

Additional advantages for a commuter killer would have been to be somewhere else when the house-to-house searches were going on, not there to be recognised again by potential witnesses between murders, and not suspected by anyone in his own neck of the woods.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Access to transport, such as a pony and cart, could have been an important factor. In other words, without transport a local killer may have been wary of travelling outside of the familiarity of his comfort zone, i.e. the immediate locality, as this could mean a lengthy trek by foot through unfamiliar districts. And, of course, there may be a significant risk that he would get lost, i.e. whilst fleeing the crime scene.

Of course, this would be unlikely to be a factor to day as the vast majority of individuals have access to vehicles or public transport networks, as well as geographical aids such as maps or GPS. However, how many relatively poor Whitechapel residents could afford a pony and cart or, say, to travel on the underground?

[caz]

The longer distance the killer had to travel though to get to any bolt hole or home the greater the danger, especially when he had souvenirs or wore blood stained clothing of any sort.

Hi Rosella,

But once out of the immediate crime zone, a non-local killer was very unlikely to be stopped and searched unless he was heavily blood stained, as nobody he came across would yet be aware that another murder had been committed. All he had to do was wear dark clothing and walk smartly, avoiding getting too close to other people or light sources. Heavy bloodstains would have been riskier for a local killer whose lodgings had to be reached via streets within the immediate crime zone, where the alarm could be raised at any second, and local police senses were already heightened.

Think of the immediate crime zone as a circle, with the main roads surrounding it. Think of the murders happening very close to these main roads. Then think of a killer who lives right in the centre of the circle, and one who lives anywhere outside it. The distance to safety could easily be longer for the local man, and arguably more dangerous.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

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 .

Always assuming that the same killer was responsible for both.

someone visited Whitechapel to commit these murders this point has been forgotten about over the years

Perhaps it's been forgotten because it cannot be established with any degree of certainty either way?

also the fact that our killer lived alone is often forgotten about as well.

This isn't a fact; it's an opinion.

[Rosella]

The longer distance the killer had to travel though to get to any bolt hole or home the greater the danger, especially when he had souvenirs or wore blood stained clothing of any sort.

[caz]

Hi John,

But surely there would have been numerous street prostitutes plying their trade in other London boroughs. Moreover, it's a matter of contention as to whether all of JtR's victims were prostitutes. I agree that many serial killers don't target victims in their immediate locality, for obvious reasons. However, what was the problem with other East End districts, such as Islington, Lambeth and Southwark?

And surely when the heat was turned up in Whitechapel, resulting in a higher police presence and a more vigilant public, it would make sense for a commuter killer to focus his activities on a different district(s). Moreover, doesn't the ease with which he was able to escape detection suggest that he was extremely familiar with Whitechapel and it's numerous passageways, short cuts and escape routes?

Hi John,

This all makes perfect sense, but similar arguments can be made the other way round. If the streets were too hot for a commuter killer, why would they not be equally hot for a local one? What was the problem with a local killer shifting himself to those other East End districts, if he found it impossible to control his murderous urges while the heat was still on? If this was the killer's comfort zone (eg if he had found it the best place in the past for cheap, anonymous sex), he may have had no interest in trying his luck elsewhere, whether he lived and worked close to his victims or not so close.

Also, the ease with which he was able to escape detection could have been down to encountering each victim on a main road and accompanying her to a quieter location just off it, then simply retracing the few steps alone and being out of Spitalfields, and out of any danger of being searched, almost before the body was discovered and the alarm raised. It could have been as quick, and possibly quicker, for an outsider to leave the immediate search area via one of these main thoroughfares (eg Commercial St or Rd, Whitechapel Rd), when you consider an insider's escape route would have kept him right there on the hottest streets until he could reach his own doorstep.

Taking the apron from Eddowes and not dumping it until he reached Goulston Street could have been a ruse to make everyone think he was a local man. This has always smacked to me of diversion tactics, rather than giving away a clue to where he was heading. The risk of using this route was the same, whether he had to use it because it was his way home, or chose to use it, before disappearing out of the district, possibly via Liverpool Street.

Additional advantages for a commuter killer would have been to be somewhere else when the house-to-house searches were going on, not there to be recognised again by potential witnesses between murders, and not suspected by anyone in his own neck of the woods.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

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.

Our killer always had a good sense for survival he always knew when to leg it he took risks but I'm pretty convinced the shock of nearly been caught made him head for the safety of home or his bolthole.

[Phil Carter]

I DO like that Cross wording....!

Christer. .you are a very naughty boy. Lol 😜


Phil

[Fisherman]

even if we actually had evidence that could nail ONE victim's killer to the cross...

I DO like that Cross wording....!

[Harry D]

Who wants any of the mystery solved?

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

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

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

Nah - you just assume it is.