Hi,
Ripperologists sometimes seem to favour the "local guy" hypothesis even if they have no evidence connecting a person to the murders.
Perhaps they assume that most victims are murdered by someone they know. So it has to be someone living in the area.
My research has led me to a theory that opposes such a view. The person I have found did not live in Whitechapel. And still I have data connecting him to the murders.
Why would this person want to walk around in Whitechapel?
And why would all the local guys do the same?
This question of course says nothing about motives (although I know his motives).
But does it perhaps say anything about probability?
Another interesting question is:
If the local guy is the dismemberment murderer, what did he do in Battersea and Chelsea?
Regards Pierre
Ripperologists sometimes seem to favour the "local guy" hypothesis even if they have no evidence connecting a person to the murders.
Perhaps they assume that most victims are murdered by someone they know. So it has to be someone living in the area.
My research has led me to a theory that opposes such a view. The person I have found did not live in Whitechapel. And still I have data connecting him to the murders.
Why would this person want to walk around in Whitechapel?
And why would all the local guys do the same?
This question of course says nothing about motives (although I know his motives).
But does it perhaps say anything about probability?
Another interesting question is:
If the local guy is the dismemberment murderer, what did he do in Battersea and Chelsea?
Regards Pierre
Comment