Tweet
So my hypothetical question is - “if I were considering setting out on a series of murders in 1888 what might I consider doing to reduce my chances of being suspected or caught?”
I’m not suggesting for a minute that the ripper (whoever he was) used any of my suggestions, or any suggestions that others might make, but they might be worth considering when we look at witness descriptions, as we often do. We can’t know how intelligent the ripper was but it’s reasonable to suggest that (perhaps along with a level of luck) he would have had a level of cunning. At least some sense of self-preservation to allow him to remain free to continue killing. He remained unidentified after all. Many of my suggestions are obvious but I’ll list them:
I’d only be active in areas where I wasn’t known. It’s one thing for a witness to give a rough description but it’s a different ball game if they said “he looked just like the man who owns the butchers shop on the Whitechapel Road.”
I’d change my looks. Beard, no beard, moustache and no beard, moustache and beard, glasses, no glasses etc.
I’d change my clothing. Cap, deerstalker, bowler hat, long coat, short coat, scarf, no scarf etc.
I’d wear clothing that could alter my build if possible. It’s surprisingly easy, with a few extra layers, how a slim man might appear as a stocky man.
I’d adopt a limp. Yes, it sounds a bit ‘imaginative’ but it’s not difficult to do and imagine if two witnesses at different murders said that they saw a man with a woman (who they were convinced was the victim) and that the man had a limp? Remember Wearside Jack. The police were convinced that the killer had a Geordie accent. Why couldn’t they become convinced that their killer had a limp?
I’d adopt an accent. If I was interrupted or if I was heard talking to a victim by a passerby then “..the man had a Scottish accent” might have provided a convenient distraction for the police, especially if two different witnesses heard this ‘accent.’
I’d use locations with the lowest chance of interruptions if possible. (Yes, it’s an obvious point I know)
I’d use different weapons. Accepted that today we are far more familiar with police/medical methods of detection and that it would be unlikely that your average Whitechapel dweller would have been aware that Doctor’s can describe a weapon from the wounds.
I’d take items from the victims, preferably with a bit of blood on them, and drop them in locations that were in the opposite direction to where I lived. A false trail.
I’d remove my coat to perform the mutilations so that any blood that I got on my clothing would be concealed when I put my coat back on.
I wouldn’t proceed with a murder if attention had been drawn to me in the company of a potential victim.
I wouldn’t commit a murder within a short time of having to be somewhere where there are other people to ensure that I had time to fully check myself for blood before being in company.
I’d consider using letters. I’d include details that only the killer would know but I’d add a misleading fact or two.
….
These suggestions aren’t to prove or disprove any suspect or theory. I’m merely trying to suggest how easy it would be to mislead witnesses and the police and how precautions might have been taken.
I’d be interested to hear thoughts and suggestions.
I’m not suggesting for a minute that the ripper (whoever he was) used any of my suggestions, or any suggestions that others might make, but they might be worth considering when we look at witness descriptions, as we often do. We can’t know how intelligent the ripper was but it’s reasonable to suggest that (perhaps along with a level of luck) he would have had a level of cunning. At least some sense of self-preservation to allow him to remain free to continue killing. He remained unidentified after all. Many of my suggestions are obvious but I’ll list them:
I’d only be active in areas where I wasn’t known. It’s one thing for a witness to give a rough description but it’s a different ball game if they said “he looked just like the man who owns the butchers shop on the Whitechapel Road.”
I’d change my looks. Beard, no beard, moustache and no beard, moustache and beard, glasses, no glasses etc.
I’d change my clothing. Cap, deerstalker, bowler hat, long coat, short coat, scarf, no scarf etc.
I’d wear clothing that could alter my build if possible. It’s surprisingly easy, with a few extra layers, how a slim man might appear as a stocky man.
I’d adopt a limp. Yes, it sounds a bit ‘imaginative’ but it’s not difficult to do and imagine if two witnesses at different murders said that they saw a man with a woman (who they were convinced was the victim) and that the man had a limp? Remember Wearside Jack. The police were convinced that the killer had a Geordie accent. Why couldn’t they become convinced that their killer had a limp?
I’d adopt an accent. If I was interrupted or if I was heard talking to a victim by a passerby then “..the man had a Scottish accent” might have provided a convenient distraction for the police, especially if two different witnesses heard this ‘accent.’
I’d use locations with the lowest chance of interruptions if possible. (Yes, it’s an obvious point I know)
I’d use different weapons. Accepted that today we are far more familiar with police/medical methods of detection and that it would be unlikely that your average Whitechapel dweller would have been aware that Doctor’s can describe a weapon from the wounds.
I’d take items from the victims, preferably with a bit of blood on them, and drop them in locations that were in the opposite direction to where I lived. A false trail.
I’d remove my coat to perform the mutilations so that any blood that I got on my clothing would be concealed when I put my coat back on.
I wouldn’t proceed with a murder if attention had been drawn to me in the company of a potential victim.
I wouldn’t commit a murder within a short time of having to be somewhere where there are other people to ensure that I had time to fully check myself for blood before being in company.
I’d consider using letters. I’d include details that only the killer would know but I’d add a misleading fact or two.
….
These suggestions aren’t to prove or disprove any suspect or theory. I’m merely trying to suggest how easy it would be to mislead witnesses and the police and how precautions might have been taken.
I’d be interested to hear thoughts and suggestions.
Comment