Location of Annie Millwood's attack

[Fisherman]

excellently put and argued. The idea that the killer wanted body parts found by throwing them in the river, or burying them, is not very sensible.

Also in the Whitehall case, the torso was hidden in a labyrinthine building site and went unnoticed for days - yet some people still claim the killer did it to send a message or somesuch.

I think we must look at things in a very basic manner, Kattrup. You say that it is not very sensible to throw body parts that you want found in the river. That probably owes to how you reason that they may float to sea and never be seen again. True - that is a possibility.

But we always tell success apart from failure in the same way, don't we: by looking at the outcome. And if we begin buy looking at the Rainham case, it applies that almost every part of the body that had been thrown in the river (or in Regent´s canal!) were found.

Now, let's assume that the killer was of one out of three mindsets:

1. He wanted the parts to go away and never be found.
2. He didn't care a lot about whether the parts were found or not.
3. He wanted the parts to be found.

Which mindset would you say corresponds best with the outcome? Me, I would say that if he hoped for number 1, his effort was a piss poor one. If he was a number 2 adherent, then why did he go through the extra job of going to Regents canal? Why not just throw it all in the water in one dumping and be done with it?
If he wanted the parts to be found, however, then he made a splendid job.

One could reason that the best way of ensuring the the parts would be found, would be to take them to Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament and dump them there. The problem, though, is that doing such a thing would get you caught and hanged.

Therefore, if you wanted a maximum press coverage and as large recognition as possible for what you did, and still stay incognito, I would say that the fewest methods could compete with chucking the parts in the river and allowing them to float ashore and be found all along the very centre of the most powerful metropolis in the world.

If we reason that the killer said "What? The parts were FOUND? That wasn't supposed to happen!!" after the Rainham strike, then one must call his wits into question for persisting to use the same method in the following two cases. It would be beyond stupid to do so, knowing full well that the parts would more than likely be found. Equally, if hiding what he did was his agenda, one must ask oneself why he put a torso in the cellar vaults of Scotland Yard, why he threw a thigh over the fence into Percy Shelleys garden, why he scattered remains in the shrubbery of Battersea Park and why he dumped the Pinchin Street victim in the railway arch where she was - naturally - found shortly after. Are those the acts of a secretive genius, hellbent on not being recognized for what he had done...? Not very likely.'

Ergo, floating the parts down the river was evidently a foolproof way of having most or all of them floating ashore and being found. Scores of very mildly gifted people have realized that a sack and a stone does a much better job of obscuring foul deeds, and I see no reason whatsoever why our man would not have been capable of that leap of mind - if it was his intention. Very, very clearly, it never was.

As for burying the parts, you will be referring to the limbs in the Whitehall case. It needs to be said that there is reason to think that the killer was not the one burying these parts, it could have been done accidentally by the workers at the site - or so I am told by many posters out here. So we may want to leave that argument for the moment being.

For how long did the Whitehall torso go unnoticed? We don't know. It is hard to say how long it had been in place. At the end of the day, however, we may be certain that it was bound to be disclosed sooner or later. There was never any possibility of it being left to slowly rot away, unnoticed and forgotten until doomsday, was there?

[Fisherman]

Jeff! I think my answer to Kattrup pretty much answers your post too, so I would be grateful if you read it and regarded it as a reply to you.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

What you described above sounds like someone scattering parts, hither and thither, not because they want the parts to be found, but because by scattering the parts they are able to get rid of them from their own location. They're simply disposing of evidence. The body was sectioned into smaller pieces to aid the transport, and when they had an opportunity to get rid of it, and they were far enough away from their location that they presumed they would be safe from suspicion, they disposed of their package. The use of the river and canal was just another way to dispose of and scatter the evidence. Nothing indicates a desire for the evidence to be found per se, but as well, dumping of body parts in various locations also indicates they are not concerned if they are found, only concerned that they are not found with him. It's simple self preservation.

A map with the locations where parts were found (not including those that were thrown in the river, since we don't know where they entered the water), could be subjected to a spatial analysis. I've never tried analyzing that type of data locations (I have analysed body dump sites, but these are locations where bodies are definitely hidden, or transported to and dumped afterwards (i.e. Ted Bundy, Wayne Williams, and Gary Ridgeway), and the algorithm is different from analyzing primary crime scenes (as per JtR) as the goal is different (primary crime scenes are locations to commit an offense, disposal locations are locations chosen post-offense, and the decisions involve different risk assessment processes, which are reflected in the choices.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I guess what I'm trying to indicate is that, killer's who move bodies, whether dismembered or intact, are generally trying to delay discovery and distance themselves from the body. Scattering without concealing indicates a primary emphasis on distance (which the torso cases appear to be). Concealing indicates a primary emphasis on time, they are trying to prevent discovery entirely. Concealers (to make up my own term here) usually involves burying the body, or covering it with brush, etc. The the distance they move it can be minimal, as in Gacy, who buried bodies in his house; or the West's, who buried their daughter in the garden; but often with cars available, they may transport the body long distances and then hide them in remote places (so both "scatter and conceal", Williams and Ridgeway). Scatterers (again, a term I just made up), will just transport and dump bodies, often in plain site (along roadways, etc; the Black Dahlia case, for example; again, a body cut into two pieces, and then dumped in one location). Scattering physically distances them from the crime, concealing temporally distances themselves from the crime.

Dennis Rader, for example, tended to leave the victims where he killed them. He did, however, move two victims, and those are the two that lived very close to him in Park City. He moved them a fair distance, because this would physically distance the body from his location and temporally delay the discovery of the body. Both of which would, in his mind, reduce the risk to drawing attention to him. With Rader, it worked, and it wasn't until he started communicating with the police again that he eventually was caught. Was talking to the police a rational thing to do? No, but neither is murdering strangers in their home for sexual gratification.

They don't always succeed. Missing persons get investigated, so the temporal distancing might not result because the killer is quickly determined to be a person of interest (last person to see missing person, let's say). But killer's thinking isn't 100% rational, so you can point out errors in their logic, particularly for those who got caught - hindsight is 20/20, as they say. One can point out that it really doesn't make sense to keep a body in the house by burying it in the basement or backyard - but this happens quite a lot. Simply because what a killer does can be argued as not being the best way to achieve the goal of physical and/or temporal distancing doesn't mean that isn't their objective.

As for "sending a message", that might be indicated if the body is left on display. Posing a body at a crime scene, for example. Or leaving the body in a very open location where it is clear that it must be discovered (i.e. Black Dahlia). Scattering parcels, in rivers, canals, over random fences, etc, is just not the same thing as taking the time to pose a victim, or to deposit a body in a very well traveled location.

JtR, is just leaving the victims where he killed them. There's no attempt to conceal or hide the body, it's in a public location, the arrangement of belongings could reflect some posing, and so forth. There appears to be a lot going on the JtR series that is entirely unlike what's going on with the torso murders.

Anyway, if you have a map of the locations where body parts were discovered, I could have a look and see what I could do with them.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Anyway, if you have a map of the locations where body parts were discovered, I could have a look and see what I could do with them.

If so, could we please start a "Geo-profiling the Torsos" thread? That would be a very specific, and useful, topic of study I'm sure, and deserves a thread of its own. This one's filed under Annie Millwood, who might or might not have been a Ripper victim, but she certainly wasn't a Torso victim!

[Kattrup]

I think we must look at things in a very basic manner, Kattrup. You say that it is not very sensible to throw body parts that you want found in the river. That probably owes to how you reason that they may float to sea and never be seen again. True - that is a possibility.

But we always tell success apart from failure in the same way, don't we: by looking at the outcome. And if we begin buy looking at the Rainham case, it applies that almost every part of the body that had been thrown in the river (or in Regent´s canal!) were found.

Now, let's assume that the killer was of one out of three mindsets:

1. He wanted the parts to go away and never be found.
2. He didn't care a lot about whether the parts were found or not.
3. He wanted the parts to be found.

Which mindset would you say corresponds best with the outcome? Me, I would say that if he hoped for number 1, his effort was a piss poor one. If he was a number 2 adherent, then why did he go through the extra job of going to Regents canal? Why not just throw it all in the water in one dumping and be done with it?

well, we don't know that the killer looked at the outcome at all, do we, that's pure speculation. Perhaps the killer was not London-based and didn't get news about the various finds.

And why not throw everything in one dumping, well perhaps because carrying around a lot of individually wrapped limbs and body parts seems rather difficult and not inconspicuous, so he made at least two trips, one for the main torso, another for the limbs, and they happened to offer different dumping opportunities.


There's no evidence suggesting the dismemberer wanted the parts found.

[Fisherman]

well, we don't know that the killer looked at the outcome at all, do we, that's pure speculation. Perhaps the killer was not London-based and didn't get news about the various finds.

And why not throw everything in one dumping, well perhaps because carrying around a lot of individually wrapped limbs and body parts seems rather difficult and not inconspicuous, so he made at least two trips, one for the main torso, another for the limbs, and they happened to offer different dumping opportunities.


There's no evidence suggesting the dismemberer wanted the parts found.

Pure speculation? Like the speculation you engage in in this post? I see.

You know, when there is no clear evidence, one can only reason from what facts there are. And the facts tell us that the killer would in all probability have been very much aware that the parts he threw in the river were subsequently found. Unless you suggest otherwise?

The sensible thing to do is therefore to accept that the outcome of the parts floating ashore was something the killer either accepted and didn't care about - or wanted. The idea that he killed and dumped victim after victim in the same fashion, always with the hope and intent that the parts would go unnoticed is not a sound one, and can be discarded.

"There is no evidence the killer wanted the parts found"? Are we talking evidence or proof here? Because the evidence very clearly suggests that he was keenly and acutely aware that they WOULD be found, and the placing of parts in Scotland Yard and in Percy Shelleys garden certainly fits perfectly well with a deeply rooted wish own the killers behalf to have the parts found. Its not as if a killer who is desperate to get rid of a torso is going to place it in the remotest cellar vaults of New Scotland Yard, is it? Byt the bye, did you check your idea that some parts were buried by the killer?

The age old "you cannot prove it" is perhaps the stalest course in the Ripperology dinner. Wouldn't it be simpler if we just skipped it? It never did any discussion any good and frankly, its a tad childish.

The killer was London-based, by the way. It is almost certain that he lived in Battersea or Chelsea, even. Ask Gareth, he will tell you.

My own thoughts is that the killer was very probably London-based. He would have been at least in his mid thirties back in 1887-89, and he would have had access to transport. I would not be surprised if he had a lot of knowledge about the currents of the Thames, and so he was able to dump at spots and times that offered the best possibilities to have the parcels float ashore. Who knows, maybe he had a lighterman father-in-law?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

What you described above sounds like someone scattering parts, hither and thither, not because they want the parts to be found, but because by scattering the parts they are able to get rid of them from their own location. They're simply disposing of evidence. The body was sectioned into smaller pieces to aid the transport, and when they had an opportunity to get rid of it, and they were far enough away from their location that they presumed they would be safe from suspicion, they disposed of their package. The use of the river and canal was just another way to dispose of and scatter the evidence. Nothing indicates a desire for the evidence to be found per se, but as well, dumping of body parts in various locations also indicates they are not concerned if they are found, only concerned that they are not found with him. It's simple self preservation.

A map with the locations where parts were found (not including those that were thrown in the river, since we don't know where they entered the water), could be subjected to a spatial analysis. I've never tried analyzing that type of data locations (I have analysed body dump sites, but these are locations where bodies are definitely hidden, or transported to and dumped afterwards (i.e. Ted Bundy, Wayne Williams, and Gary Ridgeway), and the algorithm is different from analyzing primary crime scenes (as per JtR) as the goal is different (primary crime scenes are locations to commit an offense, disposal locations are locations chosen post-offense, and the decisions involve different risk assessment processes, which are reflected in the choices.

- Jeff

Killers who dump parts "hither and thither" the way this killer did do not stand a chance to have their deeds go unnoticed. You realize this, apparently.

Therefore, we should look at him as somebody who simply wanted to distance himself from the bodies, you say - get rid of the parts and get out of there.

How does that rhyme with descending into the deepest vaults of new Scotland Yard and put a torso there? Reasonably, he could have dumped the torso outside the building, if that was all he wanted to do. If there were people nearby, he could have stepped into the building and left the torso right inside the door. But he didn't - he travelled deep down into the remotest cellar vaults and left the torso there. In the police's new headquarters as it were.

Remember what I said about coincidences a few posts back? I don't like them.

These dumpings were extremely risky in many cases. There were people sleeping in the vault beside the one where the Pinchin Street victim was found, for example. Why would he take that kind of a risk if he didn't have to?

Questions like these must be answered, and I don't think you do that, I'm afraid.

You say that the bodies were sectioned into smaller parts. Yes, once you cut a body up, the parts will be smaller than the body originally was. But the Pinchin Street torso was half a woman, a torso with the arms attached. That is no small part, and so it seems very clear that the killer was not into facilitating on that night. On other occasions, he cut the torsos into numerous sections.

This killer belongs to the third category of dismembers - the sick ones, who have an urge to cut bodies up. It is not about transportation and practicalities, it never is when you take the uterus out and bundle it up with the placenta and cord and wrap it all up in two large flaps of skin from the abdominal wall. It never is when you cut out hearts and lungs. This was an eviscerator, a man who FIRST cut from breastbone to pubes, opening up the abdominal cavity of the Rainham victim and Liz Jackson, BEFORE he proceeded to cut the torsos of them both in three sections. The sooner we see the relevance of this, the sooner we understand that these were not run of the mill dismemberment murders - he FIRST cut to eviscerate and to satisfy his urges, and only THEN did he proceed to divide the body up.

Here are two questions I wouldn't mind for you to have a go at:

1. In the 1873 case, all the joints were skillfully and dexterously cut open, with clean cuts, and then the joints were divided. But at the thighs and shoulders, the limbs were sawn through. These joints are supposedly less complicated to cut open and disjoint than the knees and elbows, for example. So why did he do it this way? Why not saw them all off or disjoint them all? Ideas?

2. In the Pinchin Street case, there were three surfaces where body parts had been taken off, both of the limbs and the neck. The surfaces of the thigh cuts were blackened and dry, whereas the neck was red and moist. So the killer had evidently taken the legs off initially, and then he left the body lying for an extended amount of time, probably days, after which he cut the head off. What practical reason do you identify for this?

If you want a map of the findings of the dumped parts, there is a good one in Mei Trow´s otherwise not very good book "The Thames Torso Murders" from 2011.

[Abby Normal]

I think we must look at things in a very basic manner, Kattrup. You say that it is not very sensible to throw body parts that you want found in the river. That probably owes to how you reason that they may float to sea and never be seen again. True - that is a possibility.

But we always tell success apart from failure in the same way, don't we: by looking at the outcome. And if we begin buy looking at the Rainham case, it applies that almost every part of the body that had been thrown in the river (or in Regent´s canal!) were found.

Now, let's assume that the killer was of one out of three mindsets:

1. He wanted the parts to go away and never be found.
2. He didn't care a lot about whether the parts were found or not.
3. He wanted the parts to be found.

Which mindset would you say corresponds best with the outcome? Me, I would say that if he hoped for number 1, his effort was a piss poor one. If he was a number 2 adherent, then why did he go through the extra job of going to Regents canal? Why not just throw it all in the water in one dumping and be done with it?
If he wanted the parts to be found, however, then he made a splendid job.

One could reason that the best way of ensuring the the parts would be found, would be to take them to Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament and dump them there. The problem, though, is that doing such a thing would get you caught and hanged.

Therefore, if you wanted a maximum press coverage and as large recognition as possible for what you did, and still stay incognito, I would say that the fewest methods could compete with chucking the parts in the river and allowing them to float ashore and be found all along the very centre of the most powerful metropolis in the world.

If we reason that the killer said "What? The parts were FOUND? That wasn't supposed to happen!!" after the Rainham strike, then one must call his wits into question for persisting to use the same method in the following two cases. It would be beyond stupid to do so, knowing full well that the parts would more than likely be found. Equally, if hiding what he did was his agenda, one must ask oneself why he put a torso in the cellar vaults of Scotland Yard, why he threw a thigh over the fence into Percy Shelleys garden, why he scattered remains in the shrubbery of Battersea Park and why he dumped the Pinchin Street victim in the railway arch where she was - naturally - found shortly after. Are those the acts of a secretive genius, hellbent on not being recognized for what he had done...? Not very likely.'

Ergo, floating the parts down the river was evidently a foolproof way of having most or all of them floating ashore and being found. Scores of very mildly gifted people have realized that a sack and a stone does a much better job of obscuring foul deeds, and I see no reason whatsoever why our man would not have been capable of that leap of mind - if it was his intention. Very, very clearly, it never was.

As for burying the parts, you will be referring to the limbs in the Whitehall case. It needs to be said that there is reason to think that the killer was not the one burying these parts, it could have been done accidentally by the workers at the site - or so I am told by many posters out here. So we may want to leave that argument for the moment being.

For how long did the Whitehall torso go unnoticed? We don't know. It is hard to say how long it had been in place. At the end of the day, however, we may be certain that it was bound to be disclosed sooner or later. There was never any possibility of it being left to slowly rot away, unnoticed and forgotten until doomsday, was there?

bingo fish
torsoman had no intention of getting rid of the parts/bodies to hide them, and neither did the ripper. the way both series victims were left/displayed/ put shows that it had some kind of special significance to the killer, and one that involved them being discovered. now whether the main purpose was to shock, or an FU to the police, or marking territory, polluting the city or some combo I haven't quite put my finger on but it meant something deeper to the killer other than just practical disposing, hiding etc.

I also think he kept the heads as trophies,at least for a while, as they usually have most meaning to post mortem type SKs.

[Sam Flynn]

This is an Annie Millwood thread, but it's been completely taken over by the topic of the Torsoripper.

Why is it so hard to keep things filed under the appropriate headings? If this were a library, we'd all be sacked.

[RockySullivan]

This is an Annie Millwood thread, but it's been completely taken over by the topic of the Torsoripper.

Why is it so hard to keep things filed under the appropriate headings? If this were a library, we'd all be sacked.

it's torso ripper & the bodies were obviously chopped up and spread apart to hinder indentification.

[Kattrup]

You know, when there is no clear evidence, one can only reason from what facts there are.

Exactly. You talk the talk - now walk the walk

And the facts tell us that the killer would in all probability have been very much aware that the parts he threw in the river were subsequently found.

What facts tell us that, do you think?

Unless you suggest otherwise?

I suggest that you're basing your theory about the killer's behaviour on assumptions that are unproven.

The sensible thing to do is therefore to accept that the outcome of the parts floating ashore was something the killer either accepted and didn't care about - or wanted. The idea that he killed and dumped victim after victim in the same fashion, always with the hope and intent that the parts would go unnoticed is not a sound one, and can be discarded.

That does not follow. You assume again and your assumption is unproven.

"There is no evidence the killer wanted the parts found"? Are we talking evidence or proof here? Because the evidence very clearly suggests that he was keenly and acutely aware that they WOULD be found,

What evidence? That they were found? That is not evidence of the killer's intentions

and the placing of parts in Scotland Yard and in Percy Shelleys garden certainly fits perfectly well with a deeply rooted wish own the killers behalf to have the parts found.

Again, theory and assumptions, not facts, not proven.

Its not as if a killer who is desperate to get rid of a torso is going to place it in the remotest cellar vaults of New Scotland Yard, is it?

Was the killer desperate, do you think? Was the building site commonly known as the New Scotland Yard, do you think?

Byt the bye, did you check your idea that some parts were buried by the killer?

No, I'm not terribly interested in the torso killer. This is a site about Jack the Ripper.

The age old "you cannot prove it" is perhaps the stalest course in the Ripperology dinner. Wouldn't it be simpler if we just skipped it? It never did any discussion any good and frankly, its a tad childish.

Sound methodology is never childish. A source-based approach is really the only way forward. It does not do the discussion any "good", because often there's nothing to discuss without new research. Nevertheless, discussion and speculation on the basis of sources can be entertaining. The problem arises when some people believe that their speculation could become established facts. Sadly, it does not work that way. And the only thing childish is dismissing the value of valid arguments when one is hard-pressed to produce any.

The killer was London-based, by the way. It is almost certain that he lived in Battersea or Chelsea, even. Ask Gareth, he will tell you.

That's certainly possible.

My own thoughts is that the killer was very probably London-based.

I would agree with that

He would have been at least in his mid thirties back in 1887-89

I don't agree. Is there anything that excludes a younger man, besides your conviction that the same guy did the 1873-torso?

, and he would have had access to transport.

Why do you think that? Besides your conviction that the killer was a carman with apparently unfettered access to company vehicles at all hours, I mean

I would not be surprised if he had a lot of knowledge about the currents of the Thames, and so he was able to dump at spots and times that offered the best possibilities to have the parcels float ashore. Who knows, maybe he had a lighterman father-in-law?

Yes, who knows? Does having a father-in-law proficient in a profession grant one the same proficiency through osmosis or is a more esoteric proces at work, I wonder?


Anyway this thread is about Jeff's splendid work on geography and this is all about something else. Sorry Jeff! I'll leave now

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

I've started a thread under the Torso Murders where we can shift the discussion of that topic there. I'm working on some new analyses for the geoprofiling algorithms, and if they bare fruit, I'll update things in this thread. But happy to discuss anything about either the spatial analysis or details of the Millwood case in relation to JtR here as well.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Anyway this thread is about Jeff's splendid work on geography and this is all about something else. Sorry Jeff! I'll leave now

Thanks, and not a problem. I have started a thread under the Torso Murders where we can move this line of discussion though.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I've been working at some of the underlying routines and spatial calculations that underlie the spatial analyses I've presented earlier. I may have had a bit of a breakthrough with regards to one of the routines (I've only just got the programming done and whether or not it produces the improvements I'm hoping it does remains to be seen. So far, in the cases I've spot tested, it's not resulted in any detrimental changes - that which worked before still seems to be working). Of course, I'm hoping it shows improved results on cases where predictions were not so impressive, and it's looking like those cases are moving up about 1 zone (this is encouraging as some of the weights are just guesses at the moments and require a bunch of analyses to work out, so I'm hoping this will get even better. Also, there's a whole new idea I want to work it, but that will take a bit more time).

Anyway, I've redone the C5 (top row) and the C5 + Millwood & Tabram (bottom row) analyses with the updated routines (left column) to compare with the older routines (right column). I've highlighted Sagar's Suspect as that's the only suspect who shows up in Zone 1 for the C5 and the blue square is Hutchinson (not because I have any particular preference for him as a suspect, but I forgot to turn the marker off, but figured that can help orient you to the locations; note, the Grafitti's location is highlighted once Millwood and Tabram are considered part of the series, and it's consistently in zones

I'm not sure how much it shows, but the new routines are producing much smoother looking probability zones, without some obvious cliffs, etc. Also, for the C5 analysis it no longer splits zone 1 into 3 locations, but retains the two "most sensible" (near Nichols, the first of the C5, which has a certain appeal) and in a location that makes perfect sense if JtR was returning home after killing Stride.


And here's the updated version of the suspect map, correcting a few details (i.e. highlighting that Klowoski/Chapman was at Cable Street at the time, etc).



And finally, to be taken with a good dosage of salt, here's the zone outputs for the various maps (the first two values are for the old routines, and the 2nd two are the new routines), and both are in the order of C5 then C5 + Tabram and Millwood. (So if you wanted to compare old vs new outputs, compare 1 & 3 or 2 & 4).

Oh, for the hospital, because it's quite a large location, I scan along the front of it and give it the "best zone" that it falls into. With regards to outputs, these would suggest that Sagar's suspect is certainly worth the priority they were placing on them. The newer routines especially suggest the area around the Grafitti is well worth a look (note, the location of the Grafitti isn't entered as a point of interest - the routines "find it", so to speak); as a result of Hutchinson's proximity to this highlighted area, that raises him on the "worthy of further investigation list" than his zone number alone (it's saying a location where evidence was actually found is a good place to be looking after all). Anyway, here's the output for your interest, should you have any:

Geographical profile outputs:
Suspect ....Zone (C5 / C5 + Tabram & Millwood / new C5/ new with 7)

Sagar’s Suspect .........( 1 / 4 / 1 / 4) - And the police were actually watching someone here!
Levy ........................ ( 4 / 2 / 3 / 3) - I know nothing of this suspect other than I spotted a post on them
Donston/Hospital ...... ( 6 / 15 / 3 / 16) - This also fits the “mad doctor/medical student” ideas
Druitt / Ludwig ......... ( 7 / 15 / 9 / 15) Druitt is suggested to have had access to Dr. Thyne's surgery, and given his cricket schedule, seems almost ruled out; Ludwig was ruled out as he was in custody on the double event
Bachert ................... ( 7 / 12 / 8 / 13) - Another suspect I know nothing about, other than he was on the vigilant committees and was a bit of a nuisance to the police at the time.
Gouston Str. Graffiti ..( 8 / 1 / 4 / 1) - this isn’t a suspect, but we know JtR was here at some point after Eddowes - was he near home?
Barnet .................... ( 9 / 5 / 8 / 4) – Using Kelly’s location
Tumblety ................ (15 / 31 / 16 / 28) There is some question as to whether he was here in 1888 or not
David Cohen ............ (17 / 17 / 16 / 17)
Peabody House ........ (19 / 8 / 19 / 8) (there’s no suspect here; I mislocated Hutchinson here before so I leave it in)
Hutchinson .............. (19 / 8 / 16 / 6)

These POIs fall in zones that would be considered pretty much “excluded”:
Pizer ....................... (32 / 38 / 30 / 37) - Pizer was cleared (although officially identified as Leather Apron)
Klowoski ................. (34 / 21 / 31 / 19) - Chapman, however apparently this wasn’t his address in the Autumn of 1888 and he was on Cable Street, just south of the map (guessing in a 40+ zone)
Kosminski ............... (35 / 44 / 34 / 43)
Kaminsky ................ (40 / 53 / 37 / 52)


Enjoy!

- Jeff