If I were the killer…

[Tel]

Unless he made hats for a living



RD

That has a ring to it - the Mad Hatter of Olde London Towne

[Herlock Sholmes]

These murders were all committed in roughly a one-mile square area, however it was densely populated. Just how far away from his residence/place of work would he have to go to be reasonably confident that he wouldn't be recognized? I think a person who operated a shop etc. on a main thoroughfare could not be confident. A loner, on the other hand, probably could walk around the corner and not be recognized.

I couldn’t place a distance on it Barnaby but i certainly wouldn’t suggest that the killer would have had to have lived miles away. We also have to consider the fact that many feel that local knowledge would have been an advantage to the killer. So I’d probably narrow it down to that small area contained within the locations. Its certainly not something that I’m pushing hard though because it’s absolutely possible that he lived within that area.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I believe a bolthole was used after Kate's murder and he had somewhere he knew near Mitre Square to clean himself up and perhaps hide the organs and PC Long was telling the truth that the bloody part of the apron, and it wasn't in Goulston st earlier.

Apart from that I believe the killer also resided close to the Hanbury st , Millers court murder sites, where he would be likely to be more bloodstained.

The point of him wearing dark clothes with a jacket with inside pockets to hide his knife etc is a gimme for me.

I believe the original Peaky blinders got their name through wearing headwear/caps with a peak pulled down low to try and conceal their faces. I am of the opinion jack would have done the same.

I also doubt very much that he carried any kind of bag/parcel etc in his hands. To what purpose would it hold ? Put his knifes in ? It could immediately draw the attention of a copper. Would he take that risk. "What's in the bag"

I also feel that a lot of what has been proposed in regards to the planning of a murder stands on whether the killer was organised or [ in my own thoughts ], disorganised to quote forensic psychologists when they look at a series of murders.

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

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.

It really depends on if the killer is organised or disorganised. Organised killers tend to take these type of questions or aspects into account. They try to pre-empt things and often take great care in their actions.

JTR appears however to be a very disorganised type of killer. I don't think these type of questions or aspects were important to him nor thought out in any great detail. i do however tie some significance to George Hutchinson's description of the man seen with Mary Kelly. This in my opinion forced the killer underground in conjunction with the Police presence. So he may have been taking this into some account.

[Scott Nelson]

The killer may have been impinged upon and that set him off. So some of the killings may have been unplanned and he just got lucky in his escape from the scene.

[Michael W Richards]

The killer may have been impinged upon and that set him off. So some of the killings may have been unplanned and he just got lucky in his escape from the scene.

Conversely Scott, some of the unsolved murders might have been events chosen by victimology and opportunity or location, but I believe in either case, the killer went out prepared to kill and without being caught...and therefore he must have had some idea about how to get away.

That is of course assuming he went out alone. There are several murders that have a woman and man seen together near the murder sites at roughly the time of the murder itself. Lookouts maybe? I dont see any evidence that rules that idea out. Ive wondered casually about the killer handing off the materials extracted to someone as he flees, 2 or 3 people all leaving in different directions.

That is of course just casual speculation, because there isnt evidence I can see to support it. But multiple individuals on at least some of the Unsolved Murders...including some assumed to be Jack the Ripper kills, would explain some things. Like suppose the killer in Mitre Square used the apron section to wipe his hands and then gave it to someone who headed towards the area where many immigrant jews lived. The killer could have headed home to the West after leaving the square for all we know, we only know for sure that someone dropped the apron section outside the Model Homes. If someone did see the killer headed West after the murder, then its less likely he was the killer...because the apron section says that the killer went North East..albeit it may have been 40 minutes or more before he placed it there.

All the questions are tricky, the answers will be too.

[c.d.]

I know this is pure speculation and you were just throwing it out there but I just don't see it. To me, there is a big difference between someone saying "hey, Bob, you take the wallet and I will meet up with you later" and someone saying "hey, Bob, would you mind hanging on to this bloody organ for a while?"

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I know this is pure speculation and you were just throwing it out there but I just don't see it. To me, there is a big difference between someone saying "hey, Bob, you take the wallet and I will meet up with you later" and someone saying "hey, Bob, would you mind hanging on to this bloody organ for a while?"

c.d.

I agree cd that its purely speculatory cd, but there have always been people in Ripperology who wonder whether multiple people may have been involved... and maybe multiple killers within that same premise. If you look at letters to the Editors sent in during that time, some openly speculated about the rise of these shocking crimes curiously timed admidst the concerted efforts of some local business men and clergy men to socially reform the area and the streets. Some suggested these crimes may have been about drawing attention to the plight of the poor immigrants and the women forced to walk the streets. Some 200 local Brothels had been closed leading up to these crimes, due to those reform efforts. Some also speculate whether these were acts of Terror committed by anarchists or Irish Independence factions, the same way train station bombings with random victims, planned Monarchy assassinations and assassinations like the Phoenix Park killings that were investigated in the Parnell Commission hearings. All these actions required multiple individuals having knowledge of what was happening...in various multiple capacities.

Is it within the realm of possibility that the Ripper killings were some form of a call for revolution of some kind? I believe its possible. Which would mean this was more than just one crazy man acting alone killing...maybe this was multiple people thinking they were acting on behalf of a "cause".

Its also clear that at least one of the Unsolved murders of a street women was committed by a group of men. Not always attributed to Jack....but sometimes Emma is included in the "Jack" totals.

Im just trying to point out that the little we actually do "know" about a lone killer named Jack is also mostly speculative and presumptive, and that we do have proof that in some cases multiple individuals acted in congress violently to work towards their goals.

And it wouldnt have been "Bob, hang on to this for a while"...it would more likely, under this premise, to be "Bob, take this over to those Model Homes off Gouston and drop it at the entrance. Leave some kind of message connecting it with the Jews".

Maybe we have a group that wanted to express their displeasure at the huge influx of European Jews in that area, maybe people with zealous religious intentions condoned the murders "for the greater good", or maybe Irish Independance fighters had some "footprints" to erase, so to speak...like maybe connections to one or more of the victims. I think In Kates case her being known within the Irish community because of her being with Conway before Kelly may have exposed her to some bad dudes.

The Parnell Commission, in my own estimate, was a far bigger issue than a handful of street women getting murdered. It was about threats to the Government and the country from inside itself. The threat that Jack created was almost exclusively towards women forced to work on the streets alone at night.

[c.d.]

Is it within the realm of possibility that the Ripper killings were some form of a call for revolution of some kind? I believe its possible.

I agree and also agree that there are a number of unknowns in this case. Just doesn't seem real probable to me.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Before anyone tells me that there is no evidence that corroborates these ideas, I know that. Be advised that I am not suggesting these are more probable or likely than any other scenario...like the lone crazy killer scenario. I am only suggesting things for discussion. Things that may link tangentially to the crimes themselves and serve as the impetus for them.