If you could witness any ONE of the murders...

[Lechmere]

This is a bit sick - what brutal serial killing do you want to get a ring side seat for?
The Nichols murder would prove it was Lechmere as he would be interrupted by Paul's approach and his 'flight' would be in that direction. The other murders wouldn't prove it was Lechmere unless you know what he looked like...
I don't think anyone would learn anything from any other scene unless it was a known culprit.
The grafitti/ apron site would also be interesting.

[Phil Carter]

Eddowes, without question. Eddowes is a possible two for one; looking at clothes, shoes, possible glimpse of the blade, breathing pattern, direction of mud tracks, identity of course, off the cuff jokes only the killer of Stride would make, anything that could lend proof to whether the double was from the same hand. Still have a killer either way, but a little more would be nice.

Hello Sleek,

I totally agree, possibly for differing reasons..I really want to know how this person, or even these persons, if that be the case, did this is double quick time seemingly slap bang between a policeman's beat and another supplymentary beat, in terrible light and under intense pressure of being caught. Its amazing that it could even happen.

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"(they definitely wouldn't if I said it was a casual labourer with an envelope addressed to 'George Hutchinson c/o Victoria Home' sticking out his pocket)."

Of course I would trust you just the same, Ruby - but I would wonder what Lechmere was doing with Toppys mail...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I would choose Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly. That way, I would find out if Lechmere was the culprit in more than one case.

The best,
Fisherman

[kensei]

Well, witnessing only one murder you could describe the killer and be able to identify him if he was one of "the usual suspects," but for all those who don't see all of the C5 as being killed by the same man or those few who don't think any two of them were, you could never conclusively solve the whole case that way.

My first reaction was to say Eddowes, but with the limitations of lighting it would have been the most difficult one in which to have a good view. So I'm going to say Kelly. We've just got to know what happened in that room.

[sleekviper]

Eddowes, without question. Eddowes is a possible two for one; looking at clothes, shoes, possible glimpse of the blade, breathing pattern, direction of mud tracks, identity of course, off the cuff jokes only the killer of Stride would make, anything that could lend proof to whether the double was from the same hand. Still have a killer either way, but a little more would be nice.

[Archaic]

Great, Ruby; you busted my psychic prediction!

Except I meant the next next poster...yeah, that's it.


Archaic

[Rubyretro]

I would pick Polly's murder, as I should be able to identify JTR as a carman, by his overalls, and maybe by a resemblence to any Lechmere descendant's photos
......if Cross/Lechmere were indeed the killer.

Of course, if he wasn't, I could only say 'no, it wasn't him' -but I'm not sure that Lechmere (the poster) and Fisherman would take my word for it !

(they definitely wouldn't if I said it was a casual labourer with an envelope addressed to 'George Hutchinson c/o Victoria Home' sticking out his pocket).

[Archaic]

Clarification, Please

Hi Damaso.

I'm not sure I'd want to witness one of these murders, but for the sake of argument, can you please clarify what you mean when you say
"you will be restricted to seeing only the murder scene and the immediate surroundings"?

With your Chapman example, do you mean we would be able to see Annie and her killer enter #29, and maybe see the killer leave, but we wouldn't be able to see the murder itself?

Same with the Kelly example; we would be able to see the killer enter and maybe leave her room, but nothing else?

Thanks,
Archaic

PS: I hereby psychically predict the next poster who comes along will say, "What if we see BS Man kill Stride, and he is the Ripper?"

[Damaso Marte]

Suppose that via magic (or sufficiently advanced technology), you are able to witness one, and only one, of the Whitechapel Murders. You will do so as an invisible ghost - nobody is aware of your presence, nobody can see or hear you, and you can't intervene. You will have to make do with the lighting at the murder scene, and you will be restricted to seeing only the murder scene and the immediate surroundings: you see the the killer and the victim enter, you see the murder, you see the killer leave and then you're done.

You can, however, share anything you've learned with the casebook forums.

What do you do?

For me, this question boils down to one thing: at which murder scene could I make the biggest contribution to our knowledge of the case?

I think the answer is Stride. If I see BS man kill Stride, then IMO that conclusively shows either that Stride is not a Ripper victim, or that everything we know about the Ripper is wrong. Either would be a major contribution. Seeing whether or not the killer was "interrupted" would have the same effect. And just by viewing the murder, I will be able to answer those two questions, no matter what the truth ends up being.

Those of you with a specific suspect in mind might be tempted to pick Chapman, and get the best possible look at the killer. You run the risk that the murder took place earlier in the morning, and thus in the dark, but even more you run the risk that (a) it's somebody we don't have on a suspect list, and you come back to casebook saying "it's just some guy with a mustache!" and you spend the rest of your life looking through photos of Whitechapel, over-analyzing anyone with so much as a dark shadow under their nose, or (b) you realize too late that it's difficult to compare a 2D pic to a moving, 3D person with full confidence. (The same applies to those who think they might get a better look with Kelly, but there you have a much greater chance of not seeing JTR...of course not a problem if you're going there to ascertain Barnett's guilt!)