J. H. Scott

[Jack Whicher]

Perhaps the best way to start would be to set out my preliminary observations and conclusions and solicit criticism. None of these is purely speculative; each has a basis in the evidence or criminology.

As I read the evidence, the Ripper victims were not killed where they were found. They were abducted, strangled, mutilated, and then “dumped.” This leads to a slightly different profile.

Description of Jack the Ripper

Physical Description:
Mr. Ripper is a Caucasian male.
He is young rather than old probably 25-30. He is about 5’7” tall and weighs about 155 pounds. He is right-handed, with an above average IQ.

Birth:
Mr. Ripper was born between 1843 and 1868 with dates near 1861 being the most probable.

Social:
Mr. Ripper is married and probably has young children.
Economically and socially he is a member of the middle class.
Acquaintances describe him as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone.
He has no public history of mental illness or instability.

Residence:
Mr. Ripper has lived in the Spitalfields Parish area for several years.
In 1888 he was living in the close vicinity of Flower and Dean Street.
He does not live in tenement or slum housing.

Employment:
He is employed in a profession which probably involves some aspect of public service.
His job does not involve manual labor.
He works near his residence and his employment brings him into frequent contact with slums and prostitutes.
His job probably provides him with a private area where he can engage in murder and dissection.

Selection of Victims
He has no personal connection to his victims. They aren’t friends, family, or co-workers.


Method of Killing
Generally, he abducts his victims, kills them in one place and disposes of them in another.
He uses an approach to his victims which gains their confidence to the extent that they go to a private place with him. Even during the height of the Ripper scare, women went willing with him.
He kills by strangulation, and then engages in extensive post-mortem mutilation.
He transports the victims to the places they are found and “poses” them. Items belonging to the victim are arranged neatly near the body.
[Note: Kelly is an exception to this pattern.]

Motive
In addition to the gratification of sexual-sadistic urges, Mr. Ripper may benefit in multiple ways from his killings;
These may include financial and social gain.

Conclusion
He is known to police and members of the Spitalfields Parish community but was not considered a suspect because he was too “normal” at a time when police were looking for a monster.


There is one person who fits these criteria, and I can't find any record of him being considered a suspect.

His name is J. H. Scott.
He was Rector of Christchurch from 1888 to 1895


Please tell me why he isn't a suspect.

[GUT]

Please tell us how you reach all those conclusions.

[The Good Michael]

As I read the evidence, the Ripper victims were not killed where they were found. They were abducted, strangled, mutilated, and then “dumped.” This leads to a slightly different profile.

Description of Jack the Ripper

Physical Description:
Mr. Ripper is a Caucasian male.
He is young rather than old probably 25-30. He is about 5’7” tall and weighs about 155 pounds. He is right-handed, with an above average IQ.

Birth:
Mr. Ripper was born between 1843 and 1868 with dates near 1861 being the most probable.

Social:
Mr. Ripper is married and probably has young children.
Economically and socially he is a member of the middle class.
Acquaintances describe him as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone.
He has no public history of mental illness or instability.

Residence:
Mr. Ripper has lived in the Spitalfields Parish area for several years.
In 1888 he was living in the close vicinity of Flower and Dean Street.
He does not live in tenement or slum housing.

Employment:
He is employed in a profession which probably involves some aspect of public service.
His job does not involve manual labor.
He works near his residence and his employment brings him into frequent contact with slums and prostitutes.
His job probably provides him with a private area where he can engage in murder and dissection.

Selection of Victims
He has no personal connection to his victims. They aren’t friends, family, or co-workers.


Method of Killing
Generally, he abducts his victims, kills them in one place and disposes of them in another.
He uses an approach to his victims which gains their confidence to the extent that they go to a private place with him. Even during the height of the Ripper scare, women went willing with him.
He kills by strangulation, and then engages in extensive post-mortem mutilation.
He transports the victims to the places they are found and “poses” them. Items belonging to the victim are arranged neatly near the body.
[Note: Kelly is an exception to this pattern.]

Motive
In addition to the gratification of sexual-sadistic urges, Mr. Ripper may benefit in multiple ways from his killings;
These may include financial and social gain.

Conclusion
He is known to police and members of the Spitalfields Parish community but was not considered a suspect because he was too “normal” at a time when police were looking for a monster.


There is one person who fits these criteria, and I can't find any record of him being considered a suspect.

His name is J. H. Scott.
He was Rector of Christchurch from 1888 to 1895


Please tell me why he isn't a suspect.

Because, aside from the fellow possibly living near Flower and Dean, nothing else you listed seems accurate to me. In fact, more than 50% seems illogical and ill-conceived.

Mike

[Mister Whitechapel]

Long-time member, first-time poster.

Grateful if you could clarify what mode of transportation your proposed suspect used to convey the bodies to their place of discovery.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[Monty]

As I read the evidence, the Ripper victims were not killed where they were found. They were abducted, strangled, mutilated, and then “dumped.” This leads to a slightly different profile.

The evidence strongly leans away from an abduction, and the bodies being dumped.

The evidence at the Eddowes scene overwhelmingly supports an attack, murder and mutilation on the spot.

Monty

[John G]

The evidence strongly leans away from an abduction, and the bodies being dumped.

The evidence at the Eddowes scene overwhelmingly supports an attack, murder and mutilation on the spot.

Monty

I agree, there is not the remotest evidence that any of the C5 victims, or Tabram, were abducted or that the killer used dump sites. In fact, if that happened then we are surely dealing with a major conspiracy.

[Fisherman]

I agree, there is not the remotest evidence that any of the C5 victims, or Tabram, were abducted or that the killer used dump sites. In fact, if that happened then we are surely dealing with a major conspiracy.

Brrrrr, John! You used the c-word. Don´t!

[John G]

Brrrrr, John! You used the c-word. Don´t!

Whoops! Sorry, Fish, I shall undertake penance with immediate effect! Of course, the problem with this Board is that you have to be so careful with your responses: I mean, had I not used the dreaded "C" word, I'm pretty sure some clever individual would have replied: "Well what about the Pinchin Street Torso, then?

[Rosella]

MJK was killed elsewhere and dumped?!

[Mister Whitechapel]

MJK was killed elsewhere and dumped?!

No, apparently this was the exception rather than the rule.

I must concur with GUT and The Good Michael - this 'profile' is immensely biased and more akin to a 'case' built around a specific suspect, rather than the reverse. I use 'case' loosely, as I see absolutely no evidence that this profile is anything of the sort; it strikes me as a list of ill-conceived assumptions that only serves to attempt lead the reader down the yellow-brick road to reach a fantastical emerald suspect.

[Harry D]

In most cases, if a murderer uses dump sites they usually opt for somewhere like a river, a layby or undergrowth, in order to distance themselves from the murder and/or return for some post-mortem action. Hard to imagine that someone would use back-streets patrolled by policemen, a back garden, and a yard next to a busy social club as 'dump sites'. These all point to an opportunistic killer who attacked women on the spot.

[packers stem]

In terms of where the killings took place there's little evidence either way but I have often wondered where annie Chapman could have got to for 3 or so hours
She was in and out of the lodging house till about 2 then what?

[Robert]

The profile aside, why J H Scott?

[Patrick S]

Perhaps the best way to start would be to set out my preliminary observations and conclusions and solicit criticism. None of these is purely speculative; each has a basis in the evidence or criminology.

As I read the evidence, the Ripper victims were not killed where they were found. They were abducted, strangled, mutilated, and then “dumped.” This leads to a slightly different profile.

Description of Jack the Ripper

Physical Description:
Mr. Ripper is a Caucasian male.
He is young rather than old probably 25-30. He is about 5’7” tall and weighs about 155 pounds. He is right-handed, with an above average IQ.

Birth:
Mr. Ripper was born between 1843 and 1868 with dates near 1861 being the most probable.

Social:
Mr. Ripper is married and probably has young children.
Economically and socially he is a member of the middle class.
Acquaintances describe him as kind and unlikely to hurt anyone.
He has no public history of mental illness or instability.

Residence:
Mr. Ripper has lived in the Spitalfields Parish area for several years.
In 1888 he was living in the close vicinity of Flower and Dean Street.
He does not live in tenement or slum housing.

Employment:
He is employed in a profession which probably involves some aspect of public service.
His job does not involve manual labor.
He works near his residence and his employment brings him into frequent contact with slums and prostitutes.
His job probably provides him with a private area where he can engage in murder and dissection.

Selection of Victims
He has no personal connection to his victims. They aren’t friends, family, or co-workers.


Method of Killing
Generally, he abducts his victims, kills them in one place and disposes of them in another.
He uses an approach to his victims which gains their confidence to the extent that they go to a private place with him. Even during the height of the Ripper scare, women went willing with him.
He kills by strangulation, and then engages in extensive post-mortem mutilation.
He transports the victims to the places they are found and “poses” them. Items belonging to the victim are arranged neatly near the body.
[Note: Kelly is an exception to this pattern.]

Motive
In addition to the gratification of sexual-sadistic urges, Mr. Ripper may benefit in multiple ways from his killings;
These may include financial and social gain.

Conclusion
He is known to police and members of the Spitalfields Parish community but was not considered a suspect because he was too “normal” at a time when police were looking for a monster.


There is one person who fits these criteria, and I can't find any record of him being considered a suspect.

His name is J. H. Scott.
He was Rector of Christchurch from 1888 to 1895


Please tell me why he isn't a suspect.

It looks to me as if the above combines some of what we think we know of the killer based upon witness testimony, autopsy results, with basic profile criteria. Of what's listed here, I think it's more likely than not that JtR was:

1. A white male
2. someone with no personal connections to his victims

Beyond that, I think there are several items listed here that are debatable, and some that are likely incorrect.

First, I'd take issue with the statement that the police were looking for a 'monster'. If we look among the men suspected by the police of being the Whitechapel murderer, we find Tumblety, Pizer, Druitt (after his suicide), Chapman. Of these four we know that Chapman was an actual killer. However, if the police were looking for someone who presented themselves outwardly as a monster...Chapman's not the guy. He managed to attract women by the trackload, it seems. Thus, he likely wasn't a raving, knife-wielding madman screaming, "Kill all Whores!" when the sun went down.

Second, I think the evidence is against you with respect to the bodies being dumped. The physical evidence seems to have indicated to the police and doctors attending the bodies that the victims were killed where they were found. As well, there were no reports of large packages being hauled through the streets or dunken women carried over shoulders near the murder sites. I think it's likely that witness testimony would be very different had the killer dumped the bodies. I think that the attack on Chapman was likely heard by Cadosh. Stride was seen by PC Smith less than 30 minutes before she was found by Diemschutz. Lawende saw Eddows with a man some ten minutes before she was found dead by PC Watkins. I think that it's clear that's more than likely the victims were killed where they were found...and very soon after they were killed (excepting Kelly).

I'd also suggest that your suspect, JH Scott, was hardly the only man who fit the desciption you provide. I'd suggest that he's simply the only man whose name you know.

Last, I thank you for providing this, something that we can debate and discuss. Respectfully, at first glance, it looks as if you have fitted your profile to your suspect. This happens often. Thus, I've no problem with it, so long as it's interesting.

PDS

[Jack Whicher]

Accurate in the sense that Scott doesn't fit them, or that the evidence doesn't fit them?

Pick one point with which you disagree, and I'll explain the reasoning.