Introduction - Former Scotland Yard DI & Author

[Curious Cat]

Hello all,

I wanted to say hello and introduce myself.

I'm a recently retired Scotland Yard DI. I spent 30 years in the Met, with the last 12 being as a murder investigator. I am also the author of a book that looks at how modern day Scotland Yard investigates murder: Murder Investigation Team

The reason I am here, I have just been signed up by a publisher to write a book about JTR, but from a modern day Scotland Yard viewpoint. I'm in the research stage and have found this site extremely helpful. I also thought it would be polite to introduce myself to those in the Ripper world, before any book is released.

Since immersing myself in the subject, I've become very fond of Frederick Abberline, who I feel I share a bond with. Prior to Scotland Yard, I spent a few years as a DS covering Whitechapel (now Tower Hamlets) and prior to that, investigating terrorists (although Islamic not Fenian).

In the near future I may be picking a few people's brains, if that is OK.

Also, in terms of the book, if anyone has any thoughts on what they would like to see contents-wise, that would interesting.

Thanks for reading and best wishes

Steve

Have you already got a structure to the book for specific research or are you still pinning down ideas and scatter researching?

[StevenKeogh]

Have you already got a structure to the book for specific research or are you still pinning down ideas and scatter researching?

At the moment I'm looking at the crimes, the victims and the investigation. So, the facts of the case. I'm not concerned with suspects at the moment and definitely not any theories.

[caz]

Hi Steven, and welcome!

I love the idea of contrasting how the police went about investigating the murders in 1888 with how today's police would proceed if faced with broadly similar cases. Which methods would be retained and improved upon, and which would no longer form any part of a current investigation?

I assume that some of the thinking around motive back in 1888 would be very different today. For example, it was suggested at the time that specific body parts were removed from the mutilated victims, or 'harvested', to sell for medical research, and a couple of today's theorists still consider that to have been a reasonable possibility for the era, even if it wouldn't work as a motive in more recent times.

I would ask if it's more realistic to see the organ removals as trophy taking, to relive the experience when the killer has very limited time with a victim. Which traits would we expect to see repeated in serial murder, regardless of whether it was happening in 1888 or yesterday?

Love,

Caz
X

[Doctored Whatsit]

The reason I am here, I have just been signed up by a publisher to write a book about JTR, but from a modern day Scotland Yard viewpoint.

Steve

Hi Steve, and welcome to "the club".

I think that you will find so much difference between 1888 investigations and the present day, far beyond fingerprints, DNA and cc tv etc. Taking a quick look at the first canonical murder, for example. PC Neil found Polly Nichols at about 3. 45 am, at once called out a doctor and sent for an ambulance. The doctor arrived within 5 -10 minutes, made a cursory examination of the body, didn't even notice the abdominal wounds, and instructed the police to move the body to the mortuary, which was done straight away. When Inspector Spratling arrived shortly after 4. 30 am, the body was long gone, and most of the blood already washed away! He went to the mortuary, and the body was still on the ambulance in the mortuary yard!

The murder took place in the early hours of 31st August, but at the inquest on 17th September, Inspector Spratling admitted that enquiries had been made "at several of the houses in Buck's Row, but not all of them"!!!! This is despite the fact that Harriet Lilley at number 7 had already told the press on 6th September that she had heard moans and gasps muffled by a train passing by, which would have been at appx 3. 30 am. She doesn't seem to have been interviewed.

I think there is very little similarity with today's methods! We all look forward to your views and the book. Good luck with it all!

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Steven, and welcome!

I love the idea of contrasting how the police went about investigating the murders in 1888 with how today's police would proceed if faced with broadly similar cases. Which methods would be retained and improved upon, and which would no longer form any part of a current investigation?

Thats a difficult question to answer bearing in mind the police in 1888 were lacking in the investigitive skills the police of today have,and they did not have access to the additional crime investigation methods such as CCTV. forensics, fingerprints that the police of today have. The method of hiring ex military men as senior officers with no policing experience did not help their cause, it became a case of the blind leading the blind. They did the best they could but their overall lack of experience in dealing with such cases was always going to be against them.

In short the police back then did the best they could given that they had never had to deal with such a case before and given a reward was offered for information which was never claimed indicates to me that despite what some think the killer did not come from the area around Whitechapel. otherwise Whitechapel would have given him up.

I dont think you can compare a modern day police murder investigation to one in 1888 the methods used today in these investigations are totally different and would not have been relevant back then.

I am glad that another ex police officer has come to casebook and I wish him well with his research and his book, but it seems people are expecting him to wave a magic wand and suddenly change the face of Ripperology.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

At the moment I'm looking at the crimes, the victims and the investigation. So, the facts of the case. I'm not concerned with suspects at the moment and definitely not any theories.

Try and keep it that way if you are able. Theories and suspects is a can of worms, that once opened does tend to cause quite the mess. I think a breakdown of police procedures both then and now could be an interesting perspective to take. Considering the conditions/area and the elusive nature of many serial murderers, I sometimes think even with modern techniques JtR could have been difficult to apprehend.

[Scott Nelson]

...the suggestions about the physical descriptions of the knife employed; a comparison of the throat wounds between Stride and Eddowes - are they similar enough to point to the same individual, or are those just how most throat cuttings look?

I'd like to see a discussion of the so-called Coram knife, found on October 1, 1888. Even though it no longer exists, the opinions of Drs. Blackwell and Phillips could be re-evaluated (at the time it was inconclusive whether the knife could have been the murder weapon used on Stride and/or Eddowes).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steven,

Welcome to the JtR boards.

Watch out for snipers.

Regards,

Simon

[StevenKeogh]

I'd like to see a discussion of the so-called Coram knife, found on October 1, 1888. Even though it no longer exists, the opinions of Drs. Blackwell and Phillips could be re-evaluated (at the time it was inconclusive whether the knife could have been the murder weapon used on Stride and/or Eddowes).

Hi Scott. This is a pathology topic, so not my area of expertise. What I would say though, I doubt it's a question that could really be answered. I've been at many post mortems where we've presented a knife to the pathologist as the potential murder weapon. The most they will usually say is it is 'consistent' with it being the weapon. That's with the knife there, with the body and being compared to the injuries. I wouldn't expect a pathologist to commit to an answer for a weapon based on description from many years ago.

[StevenKeogh]

Hi Steven,

Welcome to the JtR boards.

Watch out for snipers.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks, Simon. Haha.... I'm beginning to get worried with all the warnings.

[StevenKeogh]

Hi Steven, and welcome!

I love the idea of contrasting how the police went about investigating the murders in 1888 with how today's police would proceed if faced with broadly similar cases. Which methods would be retained and improved upon, and which would no longer form any part of a current investigation?

I assume that some of the thinking around motive back in 1888 would be very different today. For example, it was suggested at the time that specific body parts were removed from the mutilated victims, or 'harvested', to sell for medical research, and a couple of today's theorists still consider that to have been a reasonable possibility for the era, even if it wouldn't work as a motive in more recent times.

I would ask if it's more realistic to see the organ removals as trophy taking, to relive the experience when the killer has very limited time with a victim. Which traits would we expect to see repeated in serial murder, regardless of whether it was happening in 1888 or yesterday?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Many thanks. I like your train of thought and definitely all things I'm looking at.

Best wishes

Steve

[StevenKeogh]

Hi Steve, and welcome to "the club".

I think that you will find so much difference between 1888 investigations and the present day, far beyond fingerprints, DNA and cc tv etc. Taking a quick look at the first canonical murder, for example. PC Neil found Polly Nichols at about 3. 45 am, at once called out a doctor and sent for an ambulance. The doctor arrived within 5 -10 minutes, made a cursory examination of the body, didn't even notice the abdominal wounds, and instructed the police to move the body to the mortuary, which was done straight away. When Inspector Spratling arrived shortly after 4. 30 am, the body was long gone, and most of the blood already washed away! He went to the mortuary, and the body was still on the ambulance in the mortuary yard!

The murder took place in the early hours of 31st August, but at the inquest on 17th September, Inspector Spratling admitted that enquiries had been made "at several of the houses in Buck's Row, but not all of them"!!!! This is despite the fact that Harriet Lilley at number 7 had already told the press on 6th September that she had heard moans and gasps muffled by a train passing by, which would have been at appx 3. 30 am. She doesn't seem to have been interviewed.

I think there is very little similarity with today's methods! We all look forward to your views and the book. Good luck with it all!

Hi and thanks for the welcome, it really is appreciated. I had picked up on a few of these and will compare to how things are done now.

[Wickerman]

Definitely a new approach..... I'll have a look at that book. Many thanks.

Steve.

You mention Algor Mortis, and it's unreliable nature.

While yes it is true the doctors of the period had to rely on that, along with Rigor Mortis & Livor Mortis, but I believe they were well aware how limited those processes were. You will find doctor Phillips was not sure about establishing a Time of Death, he expressed his doubts when questioned. I wouldn't flail the medical profession for relying too strongly on those procedures, when it may have been the police & press who leaned in that direction too frequently, giving the false impression this was also the view of the doctors.

On the whole the medical profession knew their limits, mind you doctor Bond was a different matter, we have times where some of his conclusions leave a lot to be desired.
Interestingly, it is the opinion of doctor Bond that places the death of Mary Kelly between 1:00 - 2:00 am, his opinion appears strongly influenced by digestion. The conclusions of the legitimate post-mortem found otherwise.

Just on a hunch, I thought I would look up current opinion, and found these same three processes (Algor, Rigor, Livor) are still the top three methods out of nine in use today.

https://coronertalk.com/28

[StevenKeogh]

Steve.

You mention Algor Mortis, and it's unreliable nature.

While yes it is true the doctors of the period had to rely on that, along with Rigor Mortis & Livor Mortis, but I believe they were well aware how limited those processes were. You will find doctor Phillips was not sure about establishing a Time of Death, he expressed his doubts when questioned. I wouldn't flail the medical profession for relying too strongly on those procedures, when it may have been the police & press who leaned in that direction too frequently, giving the false impression this was also the view of the doctors.

On the whole the medical profession knew their limits, mind you doctor Bond was a different matter, we have times where some of his conclusions leave a lot to be desired.
Interestingly, it is the opinion of doctor Bond that places the death of Mary Kelly between 1:00 - 2:00 am, his opinion appears strongly influenced by digestion. The conclusions of the legitimate post-mortem found otherwise.

Just on a hunch, I thought I would look up current opinion, and found these same three processes (Algor, Rigor, Livor) are still the top three methods out of nine in use today.
https://coronertalk.com/28

Hi Jon

As with everything I write about, it's very much from a modern day Scotland Yard perspective. I would be on dodgy ground otherwise, as that's what I know. I'm aware algor mortis is used elsewhere, but never by us.

[DJA]

Someone will be along shortly to advise that Algor Mortis and family resided at 79 Pennington Street just before/after Mary Kelly.