A.P. Wolf

[Celesta]

Simon is absolutely right in that it is far more vital to understand the 'why' rather than the 'who'; and it has always been my studied opinion that a true understanding of the 'why' will naturally lead to the 'who'.
Others busy themselves with the 'who'.
I say settle the 'why' first.

Hi A.P.,

Yes, it would have to be a little of both. Know the who* and you'll learn the why; know the why and it may lead to the who. The why is vital. It seems that some form of depression ran in the Cutbush family and that could be a part of the why.

*Not referring to the rock band here, Cap'n.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

I agree to a certain extent that the 'why' is more important and interesting than the 'who'.

The 'why' is like the 'who' in this affair: nonsense if don't know the 'what'.

[Ben]

I understand what you're getting at, Canucco, but your objection seems to have less to do with the identity of Bob's suspect, and more to do with the fact that he subscribes to a "serial killer theory".

Best regards,
Ben

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Simon is absolutely right in that it is far more vital to understand the 'why' rather than the 'who'; and it has always been my studied opinion that a true understanding of the 'why' will naturally lead to the 'who'.
Others busy themselves with the 'who'.
I say settle the 'why' first.

I think, Cap'n Jack that your understanding of what Simon said is near to zero and more likely under it.
You are degraded from Cap'n to simple soldier.

[Limehouse]

I agree to a certain extent that the 'why' is more important and interesting than the 'who'. The trouble is, too many of these 'why' theories have lead to ridiculous consipracy theories involving royals, royal surgeons, royal tutors etc. When you take away the conspiracy 'why' answers, you are left with 'lust murderer' and not much else.

Unfortunately, I haven't read Bob Hinton or A P Wolf's books so perhaps someone could describe for me some other 'why' alternatives to serial sex murderer and conspiracy theory?

[Ben]

Its not so much that he stayed around after the murder,when nothing held him to Whitechapel at the time,neither work nor a home

Which is precisely what other serial killers have done, especially those that commit their crimes within a concentrated locality. If that's a "problem" with his candidacy, I'm afraid it's not a very rational one.

neither work nor a home,but rather that not only did he stick around but also inserted himself into this inquiry in such a ridiculous way.

Which is precisely what other serial killers have done for a variety of reasons. The fact that various authorities have not only predicted this very behaviour on occasions, but laid successful traps accordingly serves as a testament to the well-documented nature of this tactic. If that's a "problem" with his candidacy, I'm afraid it's not a very rational one.

Why behave like that over this particular murder? Why not do exactly the same and seek out Inspector Abberline and pose as a witness when Polly or Annie or Kate were found dead?

So you're saying he could have waltzed forward and admitted to being Lawende's man, for example, despite the fact that he was seen ten minutes before the discovery of the body, effectively precluding the possibility of slipping in a "Mr. Astrakhan" somewhere between Lawende's sighting and the body discovery? Or what if he admitted he was Schwartz' man? "Yes, that was me hurling the victim the ground at around the same time she died, and yes, that was me hurling anti-semitic insults at a passer-by, but no, I didn't kill her!".

Then there's the fact that Lawende lived in Dalston, was visiting a Jewish club in the City, and was less likely to encounter Hutchinson again.

And finally, we know that witness descriptions weren't being withheld until after the double event, and anyone who has ever picked up a book on serial killers should know that they will often alter their tactics as they follow investigative progess. The circumstances changed so they adapted accordingly.

Moreover,the ripper surely had somewhere he could clean himself after all this plunging of his hands into blood and gore?

What gore?

There wouldn't have been any on his person and garments, as the preponderance of medical evidence can attest, besides which the larger lodging house catered to 400+ residents of an average night. There wasn't the slightest chance of singling out of them for random scrutiny, especially if he was one of the hoards coming and going at all hours of the night, often with dodgy meat victuals to cook and consume in the kitchen. As bolt-holes went, you couldn't have found more ideal a haven than a common lodging house, which we know was popular with the criminal fraternity in the district.

No I reckon Hutchinson had already satisfied Abberline and the other police who signed his statement as to his whereabouts on the nights of the previous murders.

That's pretty baseless. If Hutchinson wasn't out murdering people on the other nights in question, he would almost certainly have been in bed asleep at the Victoria Home, with absolutely no possibility of his whereabouts being either verified or contradicted. If he was out murdering people on the other nights in question, all he had to say was "I was in bed asleep as usual" if ever he was quizzed along those lines. The chances of any solitary common lodger having a six-week old alibi was slim to non-existent.

People start Hutchinson debates in the weirdest places!

Best regards,
Ben

[Canucco dei Mergi]

A real bombshell

Why behave like that over this particular murder? Why not do exactly the same and seek out Inspector Abberline and pose as a witness when Polly or Annie or Kate were found dead?

These are the kind of question that spread around them a force equal to the one needed for the protons to stick together in the nucleus.
The answer would be nothing less than an atomic explosion in Ripperology.
The amount of energy rendered free would destroy anything known in 1888 in Whitechapel straight up to Whiteall.

Why behave like that over this particular murder ?

I only hope that it is not copyrighted.

[Cap'n Jack]

Simon is absolutely right in that it is far more vital to understand the 'why' rather than the 'who'; and it has always been my studied opinion that a true understanding of the 'why' will naturally lead to the 'who'.
Others busy themselves with the 'who'.
I say settle the 'why' first.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hi Ben, I am the one who thanks you for the patience you show at reading my horrible english written posts.
I could do better I tell you but it would cost me the double of the time and I am a bit lazy for that.

That Hutchinson testimony could be more likely than not a fabrication, Hinton has shown it in a well built argumentation supported by what I would call material technicalities that bodes well with human psychology and physicals elements.

That Abberline prompt acceptance of this testimony is somewhat suspicious (or could be considered as such), he favours the possibility with a clear reasoning.

Once he considers those two hypothesis, after having found the way to support them, he meets the following problem:

If Hutchinson has lied in such a way, why ?
If Abberline promptly accept such a lie without doubting too much, why ?

You understand now why I say he is brilliant then he commits suicide ?

After putting into existence such subtle questions which would have deserved him a premium the year he published his book, he botches them by the answer he gives.

If you stick to the serial killer theory (whatever the motive) you have no other choice that to do what he did to finish his book.

As Simon Wood tell us it doesn't hold water...and I would add... sinking deep and deeper into the mud.

The truth will stand straight up by herself without any need to defend it.
When it comes no one will have anything to say except may be wtf ?

[Natalie Severn]

They were really thoughtful observations Canucco made.I remember Bob"s book as being very well researched and well written but I have a huge problem over Hutchinson being the ripper.Its not so much that he stayed around after the murder,when nothing held him to Whitechapel at the time,neither work nor a home,but rather that not only did he stick around but also inserted himself into this inquiry in such a ridiculous way.Why behave like that over this particular murder? Why not do exactly the same and seek out Inspector Abberline and pose as a witness when Polly or Annie or Kate were found dead?
Moreover,the ripper surely had somewhere he could clean himself after all this plunging of his hands into blood and gore? The Victoria Home,strictly run by the police and overseen by Supt. Charles Cutbush was surely a tad near the knuckle to be cleaning off bloodstains?No I reckon Hutchinson had already satisfied Abberline and the other police who signed his statement as to his whereabouts on the nights of the previous murders.He was probably known to the police anyway and was able to verify his alibis through one of them.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Yeap, Simon, right that: not who, why or how but first of all what ?
I totally agree.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Ben]

Thanks, Canucco, for another one of your entertaining "Listen to me, and I'll show you where you're all going wrong" posts, but I'm not sure I follow your logic. You acknowledge that Hinton built a logical case, but then assert with no explanatory reasoning that his ultimate conclusion is tantamount to "Ripperological suicide".

I don't see it that way at all.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Canucco dei Mergi,

You're right. The "classical serial-killer-with-a-sexual-motive thing" doesn't hold water. I imply no criticism of any author, but any suspect-based book confirms the fact.

The question we should be asking ourselves is not "WHO was Jack the Ripper?", but rather "WHAT was Jack the Ripper?"

There is a BIG difference.

Regards,

Simon

[Canucco dei Mergi]

The book seems to be a very valid one.
It is unfortunate for the author (but I am not sure about the exact timing) that it was published in the same period than the famous faked diary which clearly must have absorbed (usurpating it) a lot of potential attention.

A great chunk of its added value to 'Ripperology' is due to its aggressive stance contra the sexual aspects classical 'Ripperologues' are attributing to the crimes (at least the reputed 'canonical' ones out of the 'Whitechapel list').

Unfortunately the too agressive stance renders that added value less valuable since the destructive aspect of it is not compensated enough by something more constructive (positive explanations of the fact that would support the justified destruction work on the pavented sexual aspect of the horrible homicides in question).

Any way a good attack that could have been able (it was not) to shake the weak fundamental basis of the serial killer model integration in the events of 1888 in Whitechapel.

A second very good point of the book to be found in explaining how the behaviour of the woman Stride just before her killing as we know it from the Schwarz testimony is to be considered very bewildering for a would-be-JtR victim.

A third very good point in pointing the finger to the very extraordinary way of behaving of some people at Scotland Yard (I would recall the obtrusive McNaghten - for his Memo but not only for that - and the coercitive Supt Cutbush who chose to shoot himself very conveniently right in front of his daughter).

All in all an interesting book from someone that is due to think outside the box except....that even if his mind want to go out his body stays in (the box I mean).

Once again, to solve all the mysterious aspects of these events the author, while presenting an astute way to cast doubt into the classical serial-killer-with-a-sexual-motive thing, stay put with a serial-killer-with-another-motive thing.

Bond to this theory the mountain delivers a mouse.

Not sexual the motives ? But psychopatho anyway preserving the serial killer bla bla bla.

Strange the behaviour of the woman Stride ? She likely knew the guy who attacked her (very very strong point) ? OK, a domestic affair (oh la la, how boring)

Extraordinary the events at Scotland Yard ? Well, all that to hide the identity of the serial killer who was a nephew of one Superintendent.

Mmmmmmmmm.....what a pity, what a waste.


The case of AP Wolf is nevertheless very interesting.
A talented thinker who is promised to a hell of a lot committs suicide himself by sticking to the serial killer theory.
Theory which doesn't give the right answers because it doesn't ask the right questions.

Probably, to the satisfaction of many and who knows...even a few at Scotland Yard.

But this lot of AP Wolf has been the lot of many other authors.

One of them is among the posters of this board.
Bob Hinton.
He too is a very talented thinker.
His treatment of Hutchinson testimony is one of the best piece of Ripperology ever.
Whatever the critics, he builds a case with logic and, as far as he can do it after more than a century, materially supports it by bringing circumstances to the events.
He brings in the case a new kind of flow of idea (the only one before him I think was Bruce Paley) - do not take words for what they mean, he tells us.
Brilliant!
The Hutchinson thing is stinking, from Hutchinson to Abberline (see the link here with thze McNaghten of AP Wolf).

But....

where all that brilliancy (I will never stress it too much) leads the author ?

Nowhere since he sticks to the classical interpretation of the affair:

Hutchinson was a (the) serial killer!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you guessed right, like AP Wolf, Bob Hinton committed his Ripperological suicide.

What a pity I say.

Jack the Ripper might have killed 5 prostitutes (ahem....that's what we are told) but he has killed so many more authors up to today that he would I think well better be remembered as a mass murderer than as a serial killer.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Natalie Severn]

Oh I thought it might be from something like that---but didnt know the quote ---sorry!
Night Robert