Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the "Local Unknown" A Cop Out?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the "Local Unknown" A Cop Out?

    Cast your votes, folks....

    Is it a cop out to "settle" for the Local unknown man theory....or is it a judgment born from sizing up the lineup and feeling no one fits the bill as Jack The Ripper ?
    23
    Yes,its a cop-out. The Ripper's name is available to us.
    17.39%
    4
    Yes, its a cop out. People aren't interested in a solution.
    21.74%
    5
    No,its not a cop out...We still have no viable suspect.
    47.83%
    11
    No,its not a cop out. We never had a viable suspect.
    13.04%
    3
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    Hi How.

    I would pick "No, it's not a cop out. While there are several viable suspects, another candidate--hitherto unmentioned--can't be discounted."
    "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

    Comment


    • #3
      A cop out from what?

      Monty

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi ho Monty

        Doing any work and having to actually defend a reasoned point of view.

        p

        Comment


        • #5
          The 'reasoned' view indicates a local unknown.

          Monty

          Comment


          • #6
            Without wanting to dredge it up all over again Monty.....

            There is no evidence that the killer was local,

            None that he knew the area,

            None that the police were only thinking locally,

            Witness evidence that he may not have been what one would expect to find living in the area.

            There has yet to be one credible case made that the killer was a local chap.

            p

            Comment


            • #7
              The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

              Lars,

              There is reasoned evidence that the killer was a local man or a man with local knowledge.

              Infact, this evidence is greater than an outsider/stranger crime.

              However, were not dredging up it up all over again.

              Monty

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe it was a local cop? Would that be a cop out?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi ho Monty
                  There is reasoned evidence that the killer was a local man or a man with local knowledge.
                  Well....why not throw a couple of lines up here just sketching out the main points of the local man argument?

                  BUt you know full well that an equally valid rebuttal will soon follow.

                  Ans till we are left with the glaring fact that if this reasoned evidence exists...it wasnt enough to convince the investigating officers that only a local man could be the culprit as they traipsed round half of England and farther afield in their search for the local Alfie from Whitechapel.

                  So...one must wonder.......how good is this evidence?

                  And the answer must be....not good enough to convince the police and therefore.....i all humility....not good enough to convince any reasonable later, less informed, investigator.

                  p

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You realize this topic forced me to re-watch my League of Gentlemen DVDs.

                    --J. "This is a LOCAL Forum . . . for LOCAL People! There's Nothing for You HERE!" D.

                    P.S. Though . . . maybe . . .



                    . . . Jack was "Local?"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Now you wish to dredge this up?

                      Why the change of heart?

                      I know full well the rebuttal will be swift and, highly likely, valid. However it will not be damning.

                      OK, to name but two...

                      The fact the murders, from Tabram to Coles, occurred in the areas of Spitalfield, Whitechapel and St Georges in the East is reasonable evidence the killer was local or had local knowledge. There were no other series of murders, within the same time frame, with the same signature, reported elsewhere in the Metropolis. Nor elsewhere in the country.

                      The Police search area and leaflet drive is reasonable evidence that the police felt the answer lay in the area where the crimes were comitted.

                      I understand what you are saying Lars, and it is extremely valid. However the evidence you ask for indicating the killer was local is just as applicable to the non local arguement.

                      For me the evidence (and there is more), as it stands, leans toward either a local person or someone with local knowledge.

                      Monty

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi ho Monty

                        The fact the murders, from Tabram to Coles, occurred in the areas of Spitalfield, Whitechapel and St Georges in the East is reasonable evidence the killer was local or had local knowledge.
                        Not really. Its reasonable evidence that the killer was in the area when he killed the women. That he was in the area because he lived there or was simply there drinking or was there walking from work or was there looking for whores to kill or was there having wandered there in a drunken stupor or was there having been in Whitechapel looking for opium/drugs/children/anything else at all.

                        How you ascribe local knowledge or local domicility from it is beyond me.

                        Especially as we KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt and as evidenced by reams of material posted elsewhere......Whitechapel was crawling in all sorts and a large proportion of them were not living there and were not local scumbags, known or unknown.
                        The Police search area and leaflet drive is reasonable evidence that the police felt the answer lay in the area where the crimes were comitted.
                        If they hadnt searched the area how much credibility would they have had? Their search of the area didnt exactly happen straight away now did it?

                        Perchance it was more reflective of their need to be seen to be doing something as opposed to their actually thinking it would find a local man?

                        Leaflets....just as likely to jog someones memory of having seen someone doing something. Has no relation to the notion of the killers origins.
                        For me the evidence (and there is more), as it stands, leans toward either a local person or someone with local knowledge.
                        There may be more Monty....but in all the months this was discussed elsewhere....it was never once produced.

                        Indeed we know that authors who expound the local man notion are reduced to defending it on the basis of statements of guff such as:

                        "There is nothing in the behavior of the immigrants of the 1880s to suggest violence of this type," (The Many Faces of Jack the Ripper by Trow).

                        Presumably because they have no evidence at all that he was local.

                        And now, in a parting harrumpphhhh....I will reproduce the following written in more eloquent fashion than I could aspire to by a man who goes by the name of Septic Blue for some reason and who write the following on another website where this topic was discussed in its entirety quite recently:

                        http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=322&page=3

                        The world of Ripperology is quite clearly fed up with eccentric theories, and many students of the case have subconsciously allowed themselves to become insistent that simplicity is the only possible key to a practical solution:

                        __ The Whitechapel Murders most widely attributed to Jack the Ripper were UNDOUBTEDLY perpetrated by a commoner, who lived in the immediate vicinity of the killing fields – any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

                        __ The Goulston Street graffiti was UNDOUBTEDLY written before Eddowes's murderer arrived on the scene – again, any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

                        __ Montague John Druitt UNDOUBTEDLY avoided Whitechapel as if it were the plague; as any compulsion on his part to do otherwise has yet to be demonstrated – once again, any other solution would be totally implausible, and plainly and simply too eccentric

                        __ etc …

                        The pendulum has quite clearly begun to swing away from eccentric fantasy. But for some, it has swung too far. The result: Simplistic Fantasy !!!

                        While some students of the case have espoused simplicity for quite some time, others have seemingly climbed aboard the simplicity bandwagon quite recently, in what would appear to be some sort of eccentricity backlash. In so doing, they have begun to insist that the Emperor looks resplendent in his new clothes.


                        p

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It is apparently common for killers to repeatedly enter the same area of which they have no knowledge or familiarity to find victims. . . .

                          --J.D.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Lars,

                            You yourself state that..

                            …..Its reasonable evidence that the killer was in the area when he killed the women. That he was in the area because he lived there or was simply there drinking or was there walking from work or was there looking for whores to kill or was there having wandered there in a drunken stupor or was there having been in Whitechapel looking for opium/drugs/children/anything else at all.
                            This makes little sense as I assume your argument is against Local person/knowledge. Yet here you state “he was in area because he lived there or simply drinking etc etc..”

                            Are you agreeing with me? I need clarification before I respond.

                            However, if I am interpreting you correctly the supposition that he was in the area looking for something is an indication he knew that something WAS there and this, in itself, is local knowledge.

                            You do not wander the most dangerous of areas, time and time again, unless you know exactly what you are letting yourself in for.

                            Especially as we KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt and as evidenced by reams of material posted elsewhere......Whitechapel was crawling in all sorts and a large proportion of them were not living there and were not local scumbags, known or unknown.
                            Reams of material? Please, you know better than to kid a kidder.

                            Define local here. Are you including immigrants new to the area, those passing through or people from outside the area but within the metropolis?

                            The simple fact is that there were locals in the area, Dew states this, Abberline states this, Reid states this, Anderson states this, many other Police officers state this. Just to say, ah, well, Whitechapel was riddled with people not from the area is pointless as we know that there were local people. There friction between the two ‘camps’ was well documented. Locals exsisted as are just as viable as suspects.

                            As for Police action, again, I see your point, though feel house to house searches (which is what the Met did in Oct 88) were more than just a memory jog.

                            Im aware of Colins excellent post. He uses the word UNDOUBTEDLY a heck of a lot and provides a warning, as well a NO evidence supporting these opinions against the accusations you list..I, on the other hand, do not use the word undoubtedly. I prefer probably.

                            You must be clear in my view. Im not stating that he was a local without doubt, Im stating that it is reasonable to state he was a local. I cannot say with certainty he was or was not, no one can.

                            This debate, as so many within the case, is endless and holds no solid conclusion. Its all down to interpretation of the case evidence and historical evidence. The evidence for both cases is there Lars, to state there isn’t is extremely bold and quite simply erroneous.

                            Ive studied this case long enough to know that it is not as simple nor as clear cut as you a claiming.

                            And Im comfortable with that.

                            From his first murder to his last he was gaining local knowledge.

                            Monty

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi MOnty

                              That list only served to indicate that living there is only among many sitautions whereby a killer could have been in the area but not living there. Somone commuting perhaps...etc etc.

                              Thats my clarification. People can be in Whitechaple, repeatedly, but not be locals.

                              the supposition that he was in the area looking for something is an indication he knew that something WAS there and this, in itself, is local knowledge
                              "Local knowledge" is most often used to indicate he knew his way around Whitechapel. I disagree. he only needed to know one or two main streets that he may hav etraversed while commuting through or whatever.

                              That is not the local knowledge that is meant when people describe how the ripper knew his way round whitechapel because he was a local scumbag.

                              You do not wander the most dangerous of areas, time and time again, unless you know exactly what you are letting yourself in for.
                              The evidence is clear that many types were on the main streets of whitechapel for many reasons at many times.

                              Define local here. Are you including immigrants new to the area, those passing through or people from outside the area but within the metropolis?
                              My definition of local has and always will be a flat cap wearing,Cockney speaking, local pub drinking, Whitechapel dwelling, working locally, knows the area, cheeky 'ows yer father type of scallywag.

                              I see you rpoint but the fact remains....the police had not confined themselves to just locals by anyones definition.

                              Therefore there can be and there is not any evidence to suggest a local was more likely to be the killer or was ever thought of by th epolice as being more likely.

                              So why do we suddenly start plumping for "local man" now? Nothings being discovered to suggest the police were wrong in their not assuming he was local.
                              The evidence for both cases is there Lars, to state there isn’t is extremely bold and quite simply erroneous.

                              Ive studied this case long enough to know that it is not as simple nor as clear cut as you a claiming.
                              Ar risk of heading down a Ben-tastic spiral of pointlessness......what is this evidence for his being most likely local?

                              The police had none. We know that. Interpreting the same information they had and saying its now evidence ...... that snot how things work.

                              You have the same material as the police.

                              They concluded there was nothing pointing exclusively or even probably at local man.

                              You conclude there is.

                              Your conclusion doesn't make the same information suddenly become evidence.

                              It just doesn't.

                              The only reasonable conclusion to draw from the material to hand is the same one as the police got....that he may have been local but also may have been anyone from any corner of England or even some sailor.

                              p

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X