Favourite 'wildcard' suspect?

[martin wilson]

I tried to sell these shoddy goods a few years back. No one was buying them then, and no one is interested now, so that's fair comment.
I should mention the late,great Chris Scotts' book A Cast of Thousands is available onsite. Useful for information on the lesser known suspects and plenty you may not know. Recommended.
All the best.

[Harry D]

*bump*

I'm interested in hearing some more wildcards. Me, personally, I think we have to look for local wrong'uns in the area, somebody who had a history of petty crime before the murders took place (that narrows it down, right?). Others would disagree, arguing that the killer could've led a double-life, or he might've been an upper-class gent slumming it in Whitechapel. All perfectly plausible but I have the ineffable sense that the killer wasn't a criminal mastermind, he was the kind who hid in plain sight but the police never caught onto him because of their preconceived notions about the killer.

[pinkmoon]

*bump*

I'm interested in hearing some more wildcards. Me, personally, I think we have to look for local wrong'uns in the area, somebody who had a history of petty crime before the murders took place (that narrows it down, right?). Others would disagree, arguing that the killer could've led a double-life, or he might've been an upper-class gent slumming it in Whitechapel. All perfectly plausible but I have the ineffable sense that the killer wasn't a criminal mastermind, he was the kind who hid in plain sight but the police never caught onto him because of their preconceived notions about the killer.

Got to be the elephant man.

[Rosemary]

Quite true

How can some one write a book and claim case closed if they can't even place their subject in the UK at the time of the murders and expect us to take it seriously.

Especially when said author of crime novels writes one that accidentally/absentmindedly outs the murderer in the first 10 pages.

[Trevor Marriott]

Especially when said author of crime novels writes one that accidentally/absentmindedly outs the murderer in the first 10 pages.

Just because you have person of interest who resides in the area doesn't automatically make them a suspect.Criminals tend not to commit crime on their own doorstep.

Conversely there doesn't have to be evidence to put a person of interest in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. How do you know that the killer didn't live in West London or anywhere for that matter and traveled into Whitechapel to commit the murders and then left and went home.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[pinkmoon]

The dates of the murders strongly suggest someone who was not local committing these crimes.

[Trevor Marriott]

The dates of the murders strongly suggest someone who was not local committing these crimes.

A traveler perhaps?

[Jon Guy]

Conversely there doesn't have to be evidence to put a person of interest in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. How do you know that the killer didn't live in West London or anywhere for that matter and traveled into Whitechapel to commit the murders and then left and went home.

Trevor

We do have the rag in Goulston Street, indicating the killer travelled east from the City, back into Whitechapel.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

We do have the rag in Goulston Street, indicating the killer travelled east from the City, back into Whitechapel.

Yes you do have it, but you cant prove the killer deposited it, so that's conjecture on your part. You cant even prove the killer wrote the graffiti ? Two unproven myths which have wrongly surrounded this mystery for years.

I have replied to your post but do not intend to get involved in the apron piece/graffiti arguments yet again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

I have replied to your post but do not intend to get involved in the apron piece/graffiti arguments yet again.

That's a relief. Your theories on the apron are rather daffy (to put it mildly).

[Trevor Marriott]

That's a relief. Your theories on the apron are rather daffy (to put it mildly).

No more daft than those who suggest the killer cut the apron piece from the apron she was wearing, when the evidence shows she was not wearing an apron.

Dam hush my lips now !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

No more daft than those who suggest the killer cut the apron piece from the apron she was wearing, when the evidence shows she was not wearing an apron.

Dam hush my lips now !!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Must have been the apron faeries, or failing that a giant rodent.

[pinkmoon]

A traveler perhaps?

Quite possibly a traveller or maybe just a person who picked a very good area to carry out his horrendous work .

[Harry D]

The dates of the murders strongly suggest someone who was not local committing these crimes.

How'd you figure?

[Rosemary]

Clueless

Just because you have person of interest who resides in the area doesn't automatically make them a suspect.Criminals tend not to commit crime on their own doorstep.

Conversely there doesn't have to be evidence to put a person of interest in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. How do you know that the killer didn't live in West London or anywhere for that matter and traveled into Whitechapel to commit the murders and then left and went home.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're so right, I don't know. It could have been one of my great-great uncles coming into Whitechapel from St Anne's Soho with sewing needles, tailor's chalk, & maybe a largish knife, mad in the tertiary stages of syphilis, maybe carrying my great gran's apron for a fetish, but with no anatomical knowledge whatsoever. I've absolutely no idea, I'm just bandying about.