Belief

[lynn cates]

appendices

Hello Corey. My induction was based on quantity of wounds only--not quality. Of course, it is but conjecture.

I know what you mean about reading frenzy into the kinds of wounds that the C5 experienced. But consider the following. You are from another country (planet, if you like) and are unaware of surgery. On the other hand, you know sharp things and anger. If you were examining an appendectomy patient, say, you might note with horror the deep abdominal wound and--what's this!--an organ is missing. Now, frenzy would easily be understood in such a context; but, it is also possible that the trained surgeon cut dispassionately, removed the appendix with the same dispassion, all in the hopes of saving life.

Just thinking aloud.

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

Hello Lynn,

It is possible.

I might like to add a new suspect to the list. Alien Jack.(heh heh)

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

I agree that Lynn's theory is plausable, but that is because it is the only one I have seen that makes much sense. Honestly everything is plausable in a case this old.

Saying something isn't plausable, in my mind, is just being close minded.

Hello Corey,

Indeed, the last sentence is crucial. For therein lies the rub. Open mindedness to consider the non-existance of a single beast called "Jack the Ripper" is tantamount, in some quarters, to hell freezing over.

If Lynn's presentation is plausible, that the C1 and C2 are of a different hand, and if Stride is a non-canonical as has been shown is a possibility not just a plausibility, then there is no single serial murderer called Jack the Ripper. Therefore to believe that Jack the Ripper, the single serial killer, never existed, isn't so incredible and unbelievable.

Those two factors, one plausible, one possible, are not sensationalist. But the remaining overview after those two factors come in, is sensational... to some....

I have previously stated it often as my personal belief, that the background for these happenings is of very great importance. That is to say..the police, the newspapers, the political climate, the people living in and around the area and the level and consequences of action and non-action taken, by both individuals and groups, have an enormous effect. It is a snowball rolling down a hill. It gathered it's own momentum after being given a hefty shove by certain people. Newspapermen, police, vigilance members and various other individuals included. All adding fuel to the fire. And all the time the ordinary working man and woman and the poorest of the poor were frightened out of their skins! For they bought the myth hook line and sinker, even helping to perpetuate it themselves...

That is why some believe "Jack the Ripper" as he has been presented to us, is a myth. That is plausible, even possible too.

Indeed, I totally agree with your last line, above.

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

I am sorry but I must make the thread go full circle. The name states what we are talking about. A belief, not a fact nor anything but a belief.

Yours truly

[Phil Carter]

Hello Corey,

I didn't say there was a fact.. I mentioned personal belief. I also mentioned factors though..lol One can believe in factors affecting the outcome, can one not?

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

Indeed they can.

Simon,

I have a question. Can one not belive in both sides of the story? Can one not believe both to be possible?

I do.

Edit: Phil, I am sorry if that seemed like I was responding only to you. That was ment for everyone on both sides.

[mklhawley]

Groupers and Splitters

Greetings all,

I have to put my two cents in. My belief is Tabram plus the C5, yet I fully admit I emotionally resist arguments to the contrary. …but of course I’m always right. I also have to admit I am a “grouper” not a “splitter”.

In science, we look for patterns in nature. Patterns just might reveal the truth, such as the discovery of an unusually high concentration of iridium in 65 million year old sedimentary rocks across the globe (evidence for an extraterrestrial impact). Lynn has attempted to do with the murders. The problem is patterns can merely be artifacts of data collection, statistics, and also of visual bias. There is an admitted problem we have in science - some scientists are groupers and some are splitters. For example, some anthropologists conclude a human evolutionary pattern starting with Australopithecus afarensis to Homo habilis to Homo erectus and finally to Homo sapiens, while others conclude these four groups are actually split into ten.

Regardless of what the papers said, it looks to me like Scotland Yard officials considered a single murderer. I have difficulty discounting detectives that lived through the experience and were privy to all of the evidence (which we probably are not). Did the papers bias their investigation to this extent?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If it was true that Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky, the sources of the name Jack the Ripper, were journalistic hoaxes [vide Anderson and Littlechild], then a murderer styling himself as such did not exist. But the top echelons in Whitehall did not make public their suspicions about the nature of this correspondence. Instead, they plastered facsimile posters of the letter and postcard across the city and encouraged belief amongst their divisional rank and file in the wholly mythical Jack.

The Times, 20th October 1888—

" . . . Last night, when the policemen on night duty were drawn up in their respective station-yards, preparatory to going on their beats, the last letter sent by "Jack the Ripper" was read over to them. It was pointed out that the writer intimated his intention of committing further murders last night, and the necessity for special vigilance was impressed upon the police."

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Regardless of what the papers said, it looks to me like Scotland Yard officials considered a single murderer..... Did the papers bias their investigation to this extent?

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

One can also consider, can one not, if the police biased things as well...

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Hello Mike, Simon, Phil,

I believe it all comes down to bias. Opinions are everywhere. Theories are abound. I do believe "Jack the Ripper" as a literary sence is fictional but not the inspiration behind the name. Yes the letter was ahoax, but was the hoax not set upon the story of truth?

Yours truly

[mklhawley]

So true Phil. Now, we do know police officials in major cities around the world were putting the pressure on Scotland Yard. Would it not have been in their interest to capture the killer/killers. If so, why would they promote a single killer if that was not the case?

Mike

[corey123]

Hello Mike,

Logic tell's me they wouldn't.

p.s I have sent you the essay

[Rubyretro]

.

Sometimes alternative solutions are provided and a theory becomes 'thoroughly discredited'.You have to remember they are what they are ,alternative possibilities.
Think of the crop circles.We knew they weren't created by aliens(well most of us anyway) but did any of us seriously believe the alternate explanation by a professor given on tv at the time that 'they were probably caused by a wind vortex'.Nearly fell off my chair laughing.Thankfully the men with the plank of wood and ropes came forward to show that the modern day scientific explanations aren't always the written truth.

[/QUOTE]

This is just so true ! ;

It really brought me in mind of a training course that I did years ago, to be a
Tourist Guide in Avignon, and which was obviously based around the Pope's Palace. I didn't carry on with being a Guide -but I will always remember the pure privilege of attending all the private visits and lectures by the most
eminent Historians and Archeologists of the Region.

I remember that one thing that was stressed to us was 'this is the prevailing
consensus -interpretations of these events and motivations were different
30 years ago even -and they may be different in 30 years time. One can only
explain things in a nutshell to people using current 'Truth' -but it isn't necessarily the 'only' or even the 'right' Truth..because new information is being found and interpreted all the time'.

This was talking about very famous people (the Pope for one !) and medieval events (you'd think that there would be nothing new to discover ) -but of course new 'digs' and new brains turn up 'new evidence' all the time.

One 'Talk' during the course concerned 'Restoration' of Historical Buildings..
(I was particularly interested because I come from a Family of Architects..and the History and 'restoration ' of old buildings is my Brother's
particular interest). Someone mentioned on here recently that he was 'only
interested in Facts..which he maintained were like 'bricks and morter, number of windows' etc..but even those 'shift' ..because when it comes to History, buildings are adapted, added to, demolished in part constantly(without 'planning laws' these changes were linked to a rise in fortunes, a new business, birth of a child, a fashion concious wife) -so even the interpretation in the 'Truth' of a building is often a matter of tracking it to a certain date and trying to make a forensic 'snapshot', which is often 'subjective' on the part of the architect..who is a product of his own era.

In this way , alot of the Pope's Palace and ramparts of Avignon, are a Victorian vision by Viollet Le Duc. The best way to restore a Public Building
today would be with mocked up Polystyrene and projections -because the 'vision' of the architect is easy to change as we learn new things, gain knowledge, and mutate theories.

Ok -I've been sidetracked -but you 'get it' : We have so much to discover about 'Jack' ...still.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Why would Scotland Yard promote a single killer if that was not the case?

Your excellent question is the one we should all be attempting to answer, for it is the solution to the Whitechapel murders.

Jack the Ripper was hokum, pure and simple, designed to take people's eyes off the ball.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

I think this thread is an example of people being frustrated with their inability to solve certain aspects of the case... certain seeming inconsistencies or conundrums... and as a result drawing the most farfetched and complex conclusions to explain them. It is one thing to say that the killer did not write the "Jack the Ripper" letters... fine. But to suggest that a serial killer did not exist at all, or indeed to suggest that a different person killed C1 and C2, is fairly absurd. Again, there is plenty of "evidence" to look at... none of it is "new" evidence, hence we are left with the same difficulties... yes for 120 years. The case has reached a stale mate, but that does not mean it makes sense to throw common sense out the window. Look at the wounds. It is clear that they are consistent all the way through the C5 (with the excepton of Stride, only because the wounds are less in number... despite this Stride's murder is still consistent with the Ripper's MO and wound types.)

Many of these conundrums are not very complicated at all, and have, in all probability, a very simple explanation. The fact that we do not know what that explanation is does not mean that the explanation must be complex or involve multiple killers, government conspiracies etc.

Take Simon's post about the Dear Boss letter. He writes: "But the top echelons in Whitehall did not make public their suspicions about the nature of this correspondence. Instead, they plastered facsimile posters of the letter and postcard across the city and encouraged belief amongst their divisional rank and file in the wholly mythical Jack."

This seems to imply, Simon, (correct me if I am wrong) that you believe that the Police intentionally mislead the police and the public to believe that "Jack the Ripper" (ie. the writer of the letters) was the killer. The much more plausible solution is that the Police considered that the letter writer might in fact be the killer, and only later (possibly years later) came to the "conclusion" that the writer was in fact a newsman. In any case, I doubt they had come to any real "conclusion" about the authenticity of the letters before October 20... They may have had their doubts, and various detectives and officers may have held differing opinions about this... but this is very far cry from the suggestion that the police knew (by October 20) that the letter was a fraud and publicized it as authentic anyway, so as to deliberately mislead anybody.

RH