Could anything every turn up to convince us?

[DJA]

Meh.

People who make coffee can't spell Barista!

[GUT]

What I would like to have is DNA evidence. There are two obvious problems with that. First, the ostensible Ripper letters have not been stored in a manner that protect the DNA. It has obviously been corrupted. The second problem, if you can call it that, is that JtR did not leave DNA evidence on the victims, thank God. If he had, we would still be where we are with the Ripper letters. Some authors have recently claimed they found provable DNA links, but those writers fail to understand that DNA evidence is useless unless one knows for certain who contributed the DNA. Since we do not know who the Ripper was, there is no point in testing any of the DNA samples in Scotland Yard's files. We may be able to prove that Mary Kelly was the ancestor of one of the recent authors, but that advances the discussion not a whit since there is no dispute Kelly was killed by the Ripper. The issue is who killed her. Bottom line, we have no usable, provable sample to compare to the letters or Kelly's corpse. More is the pity.

Well actually some do dispute that MJK was killed by Jacky, others dispute she was killed at all.

[Barrister]

Too late to answer the question

What I would like to have is DNA evidence. There are two obvious problems with that. First, the ostensible Ripper letters have not been stored in a manner that protect the DNA. It has obviously been corrupted. The second problem, if you can call it that, is that JtR did not leave DNA evidence on the victims, thank God. If he had, we would still be where we are with the Ripper letters. Some authors have recently claimed they found provable DNA links, but those writers fail to understand that DNA evidence is useless unless one knows for certain who contributed the DNA. Since we do not know who the Ripper was, there is no point in testing any of the DNA samples in Scotland Yard's files. We may be able to prove that Mary Kelly was the ancestor of one of the recent authors, but that advances the discussion not a whit since there is no dispute Kelly was killed by the Ripper. The issue is who killed her. Bottom line, we have no usable, provable sample to compare to the letters or Kelly's corpse. More is the pity.

[Michael W Richards]

Absolutely - which is why I tell the matters apart.

Overall, I think that it seems that the killing part of the whole business often seems subordinate to the evisceration part, at least when it comes to the Ripper deeds. Many serial killers stretch out the killing part, involving elements of torture etcetera, but the Ripper seems to have fetched his gratification from beyond the moment of death to a major extent.

Which is yet another reason to exclude Stride Fisherman.

[SuspectZero]

Absolutely - which is why I tell the matters apart.

Overall, I think that it seems that the killing part of the whole business often seems subordinate to the evisceration part, at least when it comes to the Ripper deeds. Many serial killers stretch out the killing part, involving elements of torture etcetera, but the Ripper seems to have fetched his gratification from beyond the moment of death to a major extent.

Yes. I agree with you 100%.

[Fisherman]

These may have been an inspiration but not necessarily a motive. Seeing eviscerated bodies may inspire the killer but something else drove him to kill. An underlying issue.

Absolutely - which is why I tell the matters apart.

Overall, I think that it seems that the killing part of the whole business often seems subordinate to the evisceration part, at least when it comes to the Ripper deeds. Many serial killers stretch out the killing part, involving elements of torture etcetera, but the Ripper seems to have fetched his gratification from beyond the moment of death to a major extent.

[SuspectZero]

Yes - but I am not talking about Pranzini. Mike Hawley was the guy who introduced Pranzini, and he (Mike, not Pranzini) speculated that JtR was perhaps a Pranzini copycat.

To me, the real revelation of the thread was the wax figure link. In those waxworks, produced before 1873, I think we are looking at the inspiration for and possible motive of both the Torso killings and the Ripper murders, at least to a significant degree.

These may have been an inspiration but not necessarily a motive. Seeing eviscerated bodies may inspire the killer but something else drove him to kill. An underlying issue.

[Fisherman]

Aren't you talking about the "JTR a Pranzini Copycat?" Thread?

Yes - but I am not talking about Pranzini. Mike Hawley was the guy who introduced Pranzini, and he (Mike, not Pranzini) speculated that JtR was perhaps a Pranzini copycat.

To me, the real revelation of the thread was the wax figure link. In those waxworks, produced before 1873, I think we are looking at the inspiration for and possible motive of both the Torso killings and the Ripper murders, at least to a significant degree.

[GUT]

Copycat...? I donīt think there is any copycat involved at all. I think it was all the work of one and the same man.
The building stones we are looking at are - to my mind - all part of the same bridge, creating a passage from 1873 all the way up to 1889.

Aren't you talking about the "JTR a Pranzini Copycat?" Thread?

[Fisherman]

Yeah but I want to read a bit more about the original before forming a view on a possible copy cat.

g
Copycat...? I donīt think there is any copycat involved at all. I think it was all the work of one and the same man.

Perhaps you are commenint on the "Pranzini copycat" thing? I donīt think Pranzini must have anything at all to do with the connection between the wax figures and the killings. I think it all began years before.

The building stones we are looking at are - to my mind - all part of the same bridge, creating a passage from 1873 all the way up to 1889.

[GUT]

Thanks for that, Gut! Mathematically, it is all very easy (if we make the assumption that the Ripper was one man only): ALL theories deserve a good spanking, since they are all wrong - with the possible exception of one.

The premise of this thread does not concern itself with the demand for spankings, though, but instead with the question "Could anything ever turn up to convince us?"

Correct and hence my 90%

It is common knowledge that the answer you get is to a smaller or larger degree goverened by how the question was asked. And looking at how it was asked here, I would answer: No, in all probability, nothing will ever turn up to convince "us".

If the question was asked differently: "Will there ever be a theory that is very probably the correct one?", I would be a lot more inclined to deliver a positive answer: There already is...

Well whilst I agree in part to me it would be one day perhaps

By the bye, Gut, I dont think that anybody has - so far - claimed that somebody who was a witness MUST be the killer. It is the other way around: people who have had it suggested to them that a witness could have been the killer have reacted by claiming that it would be stupid to say that being a witness must equate being the killer.

Not so sure that I agree there, when I read some of the threads about say Mrs Maxwell or even Hutch (bet f he hadn't come forward at the inquest he'd never have got a mention.

It is a non-issue, elevated to an issue by those who dislike having witnesses suggested as the killer. The outcome has been suggestions like "Oh, so then Bowyer, Diemschitz and Richardson must all have been the killer too!"

I've got no problems with a witness being a suspect as long as t is based on a bit more than the fact that he was a witness.

Not a very qualitative approach to the issue, but there you are.

Have your read the discussion about wax figures, eviscerating torso killers and a joint ID between Londons two most prolific serialists, by the way?

Yeah but I want to read a bit more about the original before forming a view on a possible copy cat.

The riddle may have found itīs answer, you know...

Yep I think Pierre may be onto something too.

[Fisherman]

And let's not forget the 350 "he was a witness so it must be him ideas".

You know I'm far fom convinced by Cross, but at least there is some reasoning to your theory.

Thanks for that, Gut! Mathematically, it is all very easy (if we make the assumption that the Ripper was one man only): ALL theories deserve a good spanking, since they are all wrong - with the possible exception of one.

The premise of this thread does not concern itself with the demand for spankings, though, but instead with the question "Could anything ever turn up to convince us?"

It is common knowledge that the answer you get is to a smaller or larger degree goverened by how the question was asked. And looking at how it was asked here, I would answer: No, in all probability, nothing will ever turn up to convince "us".

If the question was asked differently: "Will there ever be a theory that is very probably the correct one?", I would be a lot more inclined to deliver a positive answer: There already is...

By the bye, Gut, I dont think that anybody has - so far - claimed that somebody who was a witness MUST be the killer. It is the other way around: people who have had it suggested to them that a witness could have been the killer have reacted by claiming that it would be stupid to say that being a witness must equate being the killer.
It is a non-issue, elevated to an issue by those who dislike having witnesses suggested as the killer. The outcome has been suggestions like "Oh, so then Bowyer, Diemschitz and Richardson must all have been the killer too!"

Not a very qualitative approach to the issue, but there you are.

Have your read the discussion about wax figures, eviscerating torso killers and a joint ID between Londons two most prolific serialists, by the way? The riddle may have found itīs answer, you know...

[Jeff Leahy]

The best hope lies in the Private Asylum records in Surrey

Unfortunately most relating to the period appear to have been destroyed... Thats not to say they don't exist. Some reappeared from Holloway when the daughter of an actress who had filmed there in the nineteen seventies had removed several volumes.

But I guess its a long shot that anything would ever be proved

Yours jeff

[GUT]

To a degree yes, but most material deserves it, doesn't the diary and DNA and Pierre and ......

And let's not forget the 350 "he was a witness so it must be him ideas".

You know I'm far fom convinced by Cross, but at least there is some reasoning to your theory.

[GUT]

...meaning that the resistance lies with the posters and not within the material.

To a degree yes, but most material deserves it, doesn't the diary and DNA and Pierre and ......