The blind man

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi all


Of all the many assumptions that have been made about the Ripper over the many years that have passed since the autumn of 1888; there is one aspect in particular that I believe is definitively accurate; that the killer had to work speedily and with relatively little light to carry out his "work."

The idea as to whether the killer had anatomical knowledge and/or surgical skill is still hotly debated; as well it should be.

But a thought came to me that I don't believe has been considered before.

And seeing how my mind works; I just felt compelled to ask...

Could the Ripper have been blind?


....


tumble weeds...


....



I ask, because there is scientific evidence to support the theory that an individual who is blind, will likely have other senses that are enhanced.

in this instance, I am referring to the potential of the Ripper having enhanced senses of hearing, and touch.

Touch...to feel his way in the dark.

Hearing...to alert him to any police presence.

A blind man would not be impacted by poor lighting conditions in the street.

If a blind man can become a world class pianist, or win Strictly Come Dancing... then why can't the killer have been blind?

That may also explain the supect in some instances appearing to have small grey eyes; reported by multiple witnesses at various times.

Imagine a scenario whereby a policeman passes by a man sitting on the step of a doorway playing his concertina...there is no way that the man would be suspected.

We know that McKenzie was associated with a blind musician.

And we know of a different couple who were involved in an altercation; whereby the blind assailant brutally assorted another individual.

And even if the Ripper wasn't blind.... what better cover to elude capture; than to feign being blind.

But IF there's a chance the Ripper was visually impaired; that may have come about as a result of a sexual disease; an ideal catalyst for seeking revenge.

Nothing is impossible, and while improbable; at least it's still a tantalising possibility.

What are the 3 best disguises to escape capture... being a vicar, being a child, or being a blind man.


Could the Ripper have been the latter?

[c.d.]

The answer to this question and all similarly phrased questions is yes because you are simply asking if it is possible.

It is also possible that the Ripper was a blind child who dressed up as a vicar.

The key in all these types of questions is to switch from possible to making a case that it is probable.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Rookie, you're probably aware that Gary Barnett likes a blind man (Pearly Poll's eventual husband, Thomas Fogarty) as the killer of Tabram.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

Rookie, you're probably aware that Gary Barnett likes a blind man (Pearly Poll's eventual husband, Thomas Fogarty) as the killer of Tabram.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I had no idea about that; that sounds fascinating.

There may just be some traction in the idea after all.

I mean, it's clutching at straws, but statistically more like than Bury having murdered McKenzie, haha!


Thank you for informing me about Fogarty; the name sounds familiar but I know absolutely nothing about him.

I feel compelled to take a look now.


Fascinating indeed

[Tom_Wescott]

On the day of the Chapman murder, IIRC, it was reported in the press that a blind man attacked and stabbed the woman who was leading him about. Neither the woman nor the man were named and, frustratingly, they have no been identified in the London Hospital and Thames records, so we the report may be apocryphal. But it may not be. Barnett speculates the man may be Fogarty. It's unknown when Pearly Poll and Fogarty met, or when they become a couple. I believe it was 1892 when they married. Personally, I do not think a blind man was involved in any of the murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Barnaby]

If one accepts Stride as a victim, a blind man wouldn't have yelled "Lipski!" because he wouldn't have known Schwartz appeared Jewish. And if one accepts the Goulston graffito as written by the killer, it is unlikely to have been written by a blind man. More broadly, some of the victims were posed for maximum visual effect. Would a blind killer have cared about that?

[The Rookie Detective]

If one accepts Stride as a victim, a blind man wouldn't have yelled "Lipski!" because he wouldn't have known Schwartz appeared Jewish. And if one accepts the Goulston graffito as written by the killer, it is unlikely to have been written by a blind man. More broadly, some of the victims were posed for maximum visual effect. Would a blind killer have cared about that?

Although there's no evidence to corroborate the man alleged to have shouted "Lipski!" actually existed.

He exists only in the the words of Schwartz.


There is also no evidence that the killer wrote the chalked writing in Goulston Street.
All we know for sure is that the killer placed/dropped the bloodied piece of torn apron under the chalked writing.

The sceptic in me also considers that the graffiti never existed in the first place.

The suggestion that chalked writing was washed away so as to avoid any anti-semitic fallout, is possibly a perfect case of reverse psychology.

Consider the notion that the chalked writing never existed and was used to stur the anti-semitic rhetoric by its sheer mention of having been written.


Your latter point regarding the placement of the bodies, is a point well made.

However, the reasoning behind positioning the bodies in a certain way, wasn't for the benefit of the killer; it was all about the impact it would have upon the person who would be the first to discover the body.