Introduction - Former Scotland Yard DI & Author

[MrBarnett]

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

Why would a Scotland Yard detective be interested in Kelly’s ex pimp, a man with a history of violence against women, including knife attacks, when there was an OAP doctor who twenty years prior had treated someone with the initials MK for a sore throat?

Welcome, Steven. Good luck with your research. In case you’re not aware of it already, here’s a link to another site you might find useful:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-victims/mary-kelly/27698-the-morgenstern-brothers-felix-family-79-pennington-street

[caz]

Hi Caz,

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

Best wishes

Steve

Thank you Steven.

I was relying on you to get it, because it was clear from Trevor Marriott's response that he had no clue what my train of thought actually was.

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenKeogh]

Why would a Scotland Yard detective be interested in Kelly’s ex pimp, a man with a history of violence against women, including knife attacks, when there was an OAP doctor who twenty years prior had treated someone with the initials MK for a sore throat?

Welcome, Steven. Good luck with your research. In case you’re not aware of it already, here’s a link to another site you might find useful:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-victims/mary-kelly/27698-the-morgenstern-brothers-felix-family-79-pennington-street

Many thanks for the welcome. I wasn't aware of this this other forum, much appreciated.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Steven,

This, I think, is a good example of the differences between testimonies given 1888 and those given today. In 1888, the way in which doctors and police phrased things comes across as far more definite when compared to the phrases used today. I'm not convinced they were so naïve in 1888 that they actually believed things were as clear cut as it sometimes comes across to the modern ear, rather over time the language used to present information for legal purposes has evolved to ensure the ranges associated with evidence are communicated. For example, in many of the cases the doctors provide time of death estimates primarily based upon feeling how warm the body is to the touch. We do see some indication they were aware of the issues of course (the qualifications given in the Chapman case concerning the coolness of the morning and how his estimate could be off if he factored that in wrongly, etc), and I suspect if questioned by a defence lawyer (rather than giving statements at an inquest), that would come out more clearly. But I'm pretty sure no modern pathologist would state things quite so surely, and given the vast majority of evidence is in the form of statements, an informed critique of those statements would be the first step before delving into interpreting the evidence that still exists. I guess in a way it is sort of "translating" the presentation of 1888 doctors and police into their modern equivalents prior to then moving on to exploring what "next steps" the modern investigation would include.

I suppose, though, it would require a modern pathologist that you trust and who is willing to look over both the evidence available, taking into account the crime scene conditions, etc, and providing an evaluation of the testimony (as in, I would say the same, or I would say the following ...), and that sort of thing may not be the direction you have in mind so I could be off base.

- Jeff

[StevenKeogh]

Hi Steven,

This, I think, is a good example of the differences between testimonies given 1888 and those given today. In 1888, the way in which doctors and police phrased things comes across as far more definite when compared to the phrases used today. I'm not convinced they were so naïve in 1888 that they actually believed things were as clear cut as it sometimes comes across to the modern ear, rather over time the language used to present information for legal purposes has evolved to ensure the ranges associated with evidence are communicated. For example, in many of the cases the doctors provide time of death estimates primarily based upon feeling how warm the body is to the touch. We do see some indication they were aware of the issues of course (the qualifications given in the Chapman case concerning the coolness of the morning and how his estimate could be off if he factored that in wrongly, etc), and I suspect if questioned by a defence lawyer (rather than giving statements at an inquest), that would come out more clearly. But I'm pretty sure no modern pathologist would state things quite so surely, and given the vast majority of evidence is in the form of statements, an informed critique of those statements would be the first step before delving into interpreting the evidence that still exists. I guess in a way it is sort of "translating" the presentation of 1888 doctors and police into their modern equivalents prior to then moving on to exploring what "next steps" the modern investigation would include.

I suppose, though, it would require a modern pathologist that you trust and who is willing to look over both the evidence available, taking into account the crime scene conditions, etc, and providing an evaluation of the testimony (as in, I would say the same, or I would say the following ...), and that sort of thing may not be the direction you have in mind so I could be off base.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

All really good thoughts. It's made me think about getting a pathologist on board. I'll explore the practicalities with my publisher.

Many thanks

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff

All really good thoughts. It's made me think about getting a pathologist on board. I'll explore the practicalities with my publisher.

Many thanks

Steve

Hi
Save yourself the time and effort I have already gone down this route with a forensic patholgist and other eminemnt medical experts who have opined on the Whietchapel murders and the Thames Torsos, their reviews of the medical evidence from 1888 and other medical issues can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real truth"

https://amzn.to/3MxUvF6

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Hi Jeff

All really good thoughts. It's made me think about getting a pathologist on board. I'll explore the practicalities with my publisher.

Many thanks

Steve

You really require a medical expert/pathologist.

Eddowes' wounds require being looked at by someone who really knows what they are on about.

Ditto Chapman's body temperature/time of death.

Good luck

[Curious Cat]

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.

Might be worth touching on some more recent crimes to see if it's the available investigation techniques of the time or individuals within the particular investigations playing the main part in their success or failure. For instance, the case of Stephen Port. Modern day investigation techniques to hand but individuals and department miscommunication initially hampered the case. Same with Stephen Lawrence where his killers were known but the investigation was hugely flawed only to later be taken up by another team which successfully led to the conviction of two of the five suspects. Or notorious miscarriages of justice in the 1970s, like the Guildford 4 or those convicted of killing Maxwell Confait. But contrast that with successful investigations like that of 25 Cromwell Street or the Ipswich murders in 2006. There are of course many more to choose from.


This could then be applied the Whitechapel case to compare and contrast how those cases would've been handled if they occurred in 1888 and visa versa. How these murders may have been handled in the years when the modern investigations took place. Was it the technique or members of the team that let the killer go unidentified or would the killer have dodged any investigation team whatever techniques they had at their disposal? It's an angle, anyway.

[StevenKeogh]

Might be worth touching on some more recent crimes to see if it's the available investigation techniques of the time or individuals within the particular investigations playing the main part in their success or failure. For instance, the case of Stephen Port. Modern day investigation techniques to hand but individuals and department miscommunication initially hampered the case. Same with Stephen Lawrence where his killers were known but the investigation was hugely flawed only to later be taken up by another team which successfully led to the conviction of two of the five suspects. Or notorious miscarriages of justice in the 1970s, like the Guildford 4 or those convicted of killing Maxwell Confait. But contrast that with successful investigations like that of 25 Cromwell Street or the Ipswich murders in 2006. There are of course many more to choose from.


This could then be applied the Whitechapel case to compare and contrast how those cases would've been handled if they occurred in 1888 and visa versa. How these murders may have been handled in the years when the modern investigations took place. Was it the technique or members of the team that let the killer go unidentified or would the killer have dodged any investigation team whatever techniques they had at their disposal? It's an angle, anyway.

Hi Cat

That sounds like a can of worms I wouldn't want to open..... I'd be aiming more at the way an investigation should be conducted today and a comparison with the techniques available back then. I don't know the exact format at the mo, we will be sitting down to work that out. My publishers are more mass market, so it would need to also appeal to the more casual true crime fan.

I really do appreciate your thoughts, it definitely is an interesting angle, and could be the subject of a separate book.... When Murder Investigations Go Wrong. The Daily Mail would love that

Best wishes

Steve

[OneRound]

...

I spent over a year lurking before finally plucking up the courage to take the plunge!

...

And what about this forum, Ms Diddles?

[spyglass]

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

Hi, and welcome aboard.

Good luck with your book, it sounds very interesting.

I think it would be interesting to know in your view on what you believe are the things the Police investigation, individually and as a force got wrong back then.

Regards.

[StevenKeogh]

Hi, and welcome aboard.

Good luck with your book, it sounds very interesting.

I think it would be interesting to know in your view on what you believe are the things the Police investigation, individually and as a force got wrong back then.

Regards.

Hi Spyglass,

Many thanks for the welcome, it's much appreciated. I'll definitely do that, although it's very easy being clever after the fact so bear that in mind. I suspect I'll have more to say about the senior officers than the investigation itself.

Best wishes

Steve

[Iconoclast]

Hello all,

I wanted to say hello and introduce myself.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Welcome to the Casebook.

It's up to you, of course, but I would strongly recommend that you take a look at the actual evidence when assessing who may or may not have been the Whitechapel killer. This - fortunately for you - will be quite quick for all candidates bar one as there's no evidence whatsoever for any candidate other than for James Maybrick.

You will quickly be informed by my more sagacious fellow posters that James Maybrick is the worst of all candidates for Jack. You'll be assured that his scrapbook is a hoax - but, better than that, you'll be informed that it is a proven hoax! (It isn't, by the way, unless - like so many on this site - you have no idea what the word 'proven' means). You'll wonder how his scrapbook makes reference to his wife's initials during four pages on Mary Kelly's death scene and how on earth her initials could actually appear on Mary Kelly's wall. You'll be assured that those initials aren't there, and perhaps you'll agree with them, but - if you do - you should ask yourself how they keep appearing in book after book, starting in 1899 (I'll end this post with Dan Farson's quintessential 1973 paperback version which I consider to be about as good as it gets - and some two decades before the scrapbook came to light!). You'll hear about how his watch is also a hoax (but you'll hear only echoing silence when you ask how on earth his signature ended up in the back of it).

All-in-all, you'll be assailed by endless invective if you even give Maybrick the time of day. What I would ask you to do is to keep your mind open to the possible as the vast majority of people who post on this site have not.

Finally, I strongly suggest that you read my free and very brilliant Society's Pillar (link below) which will help you immensely in realising that the great mystery was solved thirty years ago. My 2025 version is going to be considerably better, but if I were you I wouldn't wait that long.

Good luck in your endeavours!

Ike

[Rosemary]

Hi Steve, I can't welcome I can only say: hide behind a sofa, wear a bulletproof vest, because they sharpen their knives daily with whetstone and the snipers practice with great efficiency. Honestly, they are the Ripperology equivalent of Iron Man marathoners here, so beware. I seldom post, because I'm an ethno-historian of little-to-no-to-unpublished repute, and I know nothing, less to nothing, less than less. These sha 'ti bébés are kind, in early stages, but they don't suffer fools glady. So since I don't be knowin nothin, not even jack-sh!te (no pun intended, just a common term from my misspent youth in the housing projects of NOLA.) I only dip my coastal Louisiana toes at the edge. They swim with the sharks. A cautionary tale..I have learned to enjoy all of their flash-bang gotchas.
Abrazos from me, Rosemary, whose great grandad was a tailor in the West End.

[FISHY1118]

I strongly suggest you do Steve then you'll come to the same conclusion just like the rest of us. Maybrick is probably the worse of a sad bunch of suspects.