The local guy hypothesis without evidence

[Pierre]

Evidence ?

Hi,

yes, if you mean the two pieces of evidence, that is, the apron and the graffito. These two are valuable evidence nowadays and probably were then even if people in those days didnīt understand them. And if youīre asking if I have evidence, I do.

But since I am not willing to fool everybode else with unsufficient research data like all the others who claim they have "busted" (etc) the murderer, I prefer to keep silent about this.

In the meantime, i.e. until I have the last piece of data, you can interpret everything I say as hypotheses. Even if I think that my statements rest on data which is far better than anyone elses - and I didnīt ask for being in that position and would really like to get out of it by being proven wrong.

But that wonīt happen until I am finished with this.

Regards Pierre

[Jon Guy]

Hi

yes, if you mean the two pieces of evidence, that is, the apron and the graffito.

No, I was referring to evidence to support the following claim:

He walked from Mitre Square 10 minutes to a hiding place outside of Whitechapel, left what he took from Eddowes there, washed up, took the piece of apron and a chalk with him, went back and left the two pieces of evidence, then went back to the hiding place.

These two are valuable evidence nowadays and probably were then even if people in those days didnīt understand them. And if youīre asking if I have evidence, I do.

But since I am not willing to fool everybode else with unsufficient research data like all the others who claim they have "busted" (etc) the murderer, I prefer to keep silent about this.

Ah, okay. So your claims are no better than everyone else`s.

In the meantime, i.e. until I have the last piece of data, you can interpret everything I say as hypotheses.

Without the supporting evidence, that`s all it is.

Even if I think that my statements rest on data which is far better than anyone elses

God knows what data you have discovered, if it gives you the killer's motive, hiding place and heaven know`s what.

- and I didnīt ask for being in that position and would really like to get out of it by being proven wrong.

We can do that for you.
Just give us the details of your theory.

But that wonīt happen until I am finished with this.

What else are you after? You already have the killer `s identity, his motive and even his bolt hole. All supported by your superior research.

[packers stem]

Hi,

yes, if you mean the two pieces of evidence, that is, the apron and the graffito. These two are valuable evidence nowadays and probably were then even if people in those days didnīt understand them. And if youīre asking if I have evidence, I do.

But since I am not willing to fool everybode else with unsufficient research data like all the others who claim they have "busted" (etc) the murderer, I prefer to keep silent about this.

In the meantime, i.e. until I have the last piece of data, you can interpret everything I say as hypotheses. Even if I think that my statements rest on data which is far better than anyone elses - and I didnīt ask for being in that position and would really like to get out of it by being proven wrong.

But that wonīt happen until I am finished with this.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre
I strongly suspect that even if you ever do find your missing data, we will, almost certainly, still interpret everything you say as hypotheses

[Pierre]

Hi



No, I was referring to evidence to support the following claim:

He walked from Mitre Square 10 minutes to a hiding place outside of Whitechapel, left what he took from Eddowes there, washed up, took the piece of apron and a chalk with him, went back and left the two pieces of evidence, then went back to the hiding place.



Ah, okay. So your claims are no better than everyone else`s.



Without the supporting evidence, that`s all it is.




God knows what data you have discovered, if it gives you the killer's motive, hiding place and heaven know`s what.




We can do that for you.
Just give us the details of your theory.



What else are you after? You already have the killer `s identity, his motive and even his bolt hole. All supported by your superior research.

Hi,

no, my research is not superior. It is rather useless until I have the last bit. Itīs a bit like following a criminal around the city on a dark night. You hear his steps, you see him and follow him at a distance and when you reach the last corner all you have to do is look around that corner and confirm he is really there.

Regards Pierre

[gnote]

Hi,

no, my research is not superior. It is rather useless until I have the last bit. Itīs a bit like following a criminal around the city on a dark night. You hear his steps, you see him and follow him at a distance and when you reach the last corner all you have to do is look around that corner and confirm he is really there.

Regards Pierre

And assuming everything you say is true, but the last piece to the puzzle turns out to prove your theory wrong are you planning on sharing who your suspect was?

[J6123]

https://youtu.be/9DWf6j_sQbo

This is quite an interesting presentation about geographic profiling. The Ripper bit starts about 28 minutes in.

[Pierre]

And assuming everything you say is true, but the last piece to the puzzle turns out to prove your theory wrong are you planning on sharing who your suspect was?

Yes, I will. A reason for that is that there would still be sources and interpretations that would shed a new light on the murders. Another reason is that I would like to show you how many mistakes I made along the way and how I made them.

Regards Pierre

[DJA]

I would like to show you how many mistakes I made along the way and how I made them.

Regards Pierre

186 and counting.

[miss marple]

I am surprised Mayerling, that you say Whitechapel is the red light district of London. Never. The red light district of London was the West End, that's where middle classes and aristos went for a spree.'Going up West' was a bit naughty. From Leicester Sq to Green Park had the best brothels,catering to all tastes, supper clubs where ladies of the night mingled with clients. Theatres like the Empire and Alhambra where expensive whores paraded in the bars. Or you could pick up a cheaper girl in Green Park itself which was alive with girls. And there were more girls openly plying their trade in Victorian London than today.

Whitechapel was a desperate dirty crime ridden plague on London that was avoided by the majority of Londoners due to its reputation. To say that it was the red light district of London is like saying some crime ridden council estate today is the red light district. No you, but a lot of casebook contributors, who don't know London have a strange idea that whitechapel was the centre of the vice trade. Extreme poverty, crime, domestic violence, sickness and desperate women trying to make a few pence don't make a vice trade. Of course a few perverts might be attracted to the low life but they were not the majority. Prostitution like a everything else is based on what you can afford. The east end women charged a pittance that the local poverty striken men could afford. I think Jack was local, if you want to kill whores there are more obvious targets. I am a Londoner and my family were in London for many generations and I know how the east end was regarded even though some of my ancestors lived there sometime. The history of London's vice trade is very rich in narrative and the east end is not that important in its development.

I love your posts Jeff!

Miss Marple

[Mayerling]

I am surprised Mayerling, that you say Whitechapel is the red light district of London. Never. The red light district of London was the West End, that's where middle classes and aristos went for a spree.'Going up West' was a bit naughty. From Leicester Sq to Green Park had the best brothels,catering to all tastes, supper clubs where ladies of the night mingled with clients. Theatres like the Empire and Alhambra where expensive whores paraded in the bars. Or you could pick up a cheaper girl in Green Park itself which was alive with girls. And there were more girls openly plying their trade in Victorian London than today.

Whitechapel was a desperate dirty crime ridden plague on London that was avoided by the majority of Londoners due to its reputation. To say that it was the red light district of London is like saying some crime ridden council estate today is the red light district. No you, but a lot of casebook contributors, who don't know London have a strange idea that whitechapel was the centre of the vice trade. Extreme poverty, crime, domestic violence, sickness and desperate women trying to make a few pence don't make a vice trade. Of course a few perverts might be attracted to the low life but they were not the majority. Prostitution like a everything else is based on what you can afford. The east end women charged a pittance that the local poverty striken men could afford. I think Jack was local, if you want to kill whores there are more obvious targets. I am a Londoner and my family were in London for many generations and I know how the east end was regarded even though some of my ancestors lived there sometime. The history of London's vice trade is very rich in narrative and the east end is not that important in its development.

I love your posts Jeff!

Miss Marple

Hi Miss Marple,

I can only plea my ignorance on the social strata of the term "red light district". I was under the impression that it is a general term for the districts where prostitution of all sorts (female, male, and, forgive us all, children) occur. No doubt plenty of the better houses were in the West End of London, but (judging from the discussions of the fate of five or more fallen ladies on these threads on this board) I surmised that for all intents and purposes Whitechapel and Lambeth and Stepney were the center of prostitution in London - hence they'd be the red light districts. I stand corrected now.

It would be closer to say that the upper and middle classes getting their sexual fantasies settled in the East End (and most of them being males going there for that purpose) were partaking in what the French would call, "love of the mud" (I can't recall the French phrase for it), or what we would call, "slumming". Probably they found it cheaper than the expensive bordellos in the West End. Also it was less likely they'd meet with people they knew there (though this was always a possibility). In anyway they did run the same risks in both ends of London (and elsewhere in other cities around the globe). The rise in venereal diseases was epidemic.

Think of Lord Randolph Churchill (whom possibly Pierre is considering for his subject of suspicion, though I add at his height in power Lord Randolph was admired but hardly publicly adored). Churchill is generally considered the victim of a growing syphilis infection that made him desperately gamble in the late 1880s with political advancement as quickly as possible. He hoped to force the Tories to accept his leadership in place of their leader Lord Salisbury. His push got him up to the number two spot (Chancellor of Exchecquer) within five years, but he fell by January 1887 due to miscalculation (Salisbury was smart on his own, but he also had understudied power under Disraeli, so he knew how to cut somebody down to size quickly). Churchill remained in Parliament until about the time of his death in 1895, increasingly giving long rambling speeches to an increasingly saddened and indifferent House of Commons. All from having spent some time with a prostitute in the 1870s (apparently a single occasion he claimed). Given his fall from power, it is understandable that in his more rational moments he'd be angry at the prostitute who did it to him, and her class - giving him a possible motive. I don't think he did it though.

Sorry for the digression into Lord Randolph, Mrs. Marple, but it seemed fitting here.

Jeff