Best solution?

[caz]

That there was no JtR is best illustrated by the contradictory reports of his fate.

Dead, committed to an asylum, doing a stretch in prison, got away from London, dead again, back in an asylum, fled to America, committed suicide, about to meet the hangman . . . the list of anecdotal rumours goes on and on, each attributable to various police sources.

Er, Simon, wouldn't that be more easily explained by the fact that the Whitechapel murders stopped and nobody was ever caught, leading to as many theories about the killer's fate as there are today about his identity?

If you see this as an indication that there was a whole series of JtRs, who mysteriously all committed murder in the same time frame, picking the same victim type in the same tiny area of town, you might as well suggest that one of the killers died, one ended up in an asylum, one went to prison, one left London, one sailed to America, one topped himself and one was hanged for other murders. This would presumably be your explanation for not one of these murders being solved using the tried and trusted police methods that tended to clear up one-off murders for tangible motives.

I have abandoned any search for a non-existent serial-killing JtR and am instead concentrating on what might really have been going on in the East End of London at the time, which involves why this mythical personage was so heavily promoted by the police.

Well yes, there's not a lot of point in searching for the 'non-existent', so I hope for your sake that all these separate killers actually existed, and this new mystery you are concentrating on turns out to have some substance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

It was the Metropolitan Police who did the promoting, by enlarging the JtR correspondence to poster size and splashing it across London.

And everyone bought it—hook, line and sinker.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Doesn't that just mean that, at the time, they bought it, hook, line and sinker along with everyone else?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Your lovingly condescending tone tells me that you believe the Jack the Ripper mythos to be sacrosanct and not to be meddled with.

That's cool with me. So let's make a deal. You keep the faith whilst I look for the truth.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

Only if you believe Scotland Yard was exceedingly gullible.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

I can't imagine anyone truly believing that Chapman's murder was a one-off, or likewise, Eddowes murder, following directly after Chapman's, was another one-off.
Unlike Tabram, Stride, McKenzie & Coles, which can be readily seen as singular occurrances, right or wrong.

It would require a uniquely creative argument to have one murderer do what he did to Annie Chapman, and for what reason?, and to never kill again.
Likewise, for what rational reason would anyone do that to Eddowes but, never kill again?

If the perceived increase in mutilations is real, we are being asked to believe that four strangers murdered Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes then Kelly, in measured furiosity.

Regards, Jon S.

[Roy Corduroy]

It was the Metropolitan Police who did the promoting, by enlarging the JtR correspondence to poster size and splashing it across London.

And everyone bought it—hook, line and sinker.

I always thought the Metropolitan Police were using it as a clue. By publicizing it they were hoping to get a response from the public which could lead to apprehension of the murderer. You know, police work. What police do. Like the way the Unibomber Manifesto was printed in full in the press, leading to the arrest and conviction of Ted Kaczynski. His brother read it and recognized it as Ted's rant.

You make is sound like the police knew the 'Ripper' correspondence was a put-on the moment they saw it, but went ahead anyway publicizing it. Is that what you are suggesting, Simon? Police knowingly put out fraudulent posters? Intentionally misleading the public at that time? Their evil plot to lie, cheat and obsfucate was already hatched pronto.

Roy

[Bridewell]

Who Wasn't Gullible

Hi Bridewell,

Only if you believe Scotland Yard was exceedingly gullible.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

124 years after it was sent there is still no certainty as to the authorship of the 'Dear Boss' letter. I therefore see nothing gullible in a pragmatic 'all options' decision. Put it another way, if the police were gullible for treating the letter as possibly authentic, who were their contemporaries who immediately recognised it as a hoax? Who went into print at the time and immediately discounted it? Who wasn't fooled and said so? Anyone?

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

class warfare

Hello Abby. Women of the same class? That's a fair sized assumption.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

iste, ille et alius

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

“Where do I start?”

At the beginning will do.

“The best is more than adequate in the circumstances. It would have been a bloomin' miracle for any murderer to have lingered moments longer with any one of the victims without someone coming upon the scene. This wasn't exactly happening far from the madding crowd.”

I agree to an extent. I think my lad was incredibly lucky to have escaped. (By the way, if it were a serial killer from Whitechapel AND he came back to admire his work, would that be the return of the native? (heh-heh)

“No killer is a robot, and no two crimes by the same hand are ever identical.”

But Polly and Annie were bloody close—if you consider the “how" not the “what” of it.

“I expect if Bundy had not been caught you could have pointed to differences in every single one of his murders and argued against a lone killer for all.”

No, for I haven’t the slightest interest in him.

“In any case, how do you know something was not taken from each Whitechapel victim, without necessarily being missed?”

Thinking about their rifled contents—torn pocket, etc.

“Or we can go with the police verdict at the time that Barnett could safely be eliminated.”

Would you go with the C of L police who decided on multiple hands?

“No explanation needed as to why a serial mutilator might have killed Kate and MJK. It would have been rude not to, when they were handing their vulnerability out on a plate.”

Huh?

“Absolutely fair enough, except that some profess no interest in exploring seriality as a phenomenon, and have banished it entirely from their mind, allowing no comparisons to be made with the WM.”

Compare away. And, yes, serial killers have no interest for me. Disgusting.

“I rest my case.”

Perhaps it NEEDS resting? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Jon.

"It would require a uniquely creative argument to have one murderer do what he did to Annie Chapman, and for what reason? and to never kill again."

After Polly and Annie he was sectioned. Nothing deep here.

"Likewise, for what rational reason would anyone do that to Eddowes but, never kill again?"

He had it in for Kate. Any solution to Kate's murder must begin with what she and John were doing in Shoreditch on Saturday afternoon.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

"You make it sound like the police knew the 'Ripper' correspondence was a put-on the moment they saw it, but went ahead anyway publicizing it. Is that what you are suggesting, Simon?"

In a word, yes.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"It would require a uniquely creative argument to have one murderer do what he did to Annie Chapman, and for what reason? and to never kill again."

After Polly and Annie he was sectioned. Nothing deep here.

Ahh, Lynn my friend, you're cheating.
We were talking about one killer per victim, so you want your killer to have two victims. Ok, then, I can cheat too, I want him to have three victims
(where does it end?)

"Likewise, for what rational reason would anyone do that to Eddowes but, never kill again?"

He had it in for Kate. Any solution to Kate's murder must begin with what she and John were doing in Shoreditch on Saturday afternoon.

Where do we get "must" from?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

knowing when to stop

Hello Jon. Thanks.

It stops with two victims who were soliciting, each of whom was strangled, had their throats cut twice, and then were abdominally mutilated by lifting their dresses.

It does NOT include a lady who was NOT soliciting, was NOT strangled, NOT cut twice (or with a superficial cut), and who was mutilated through her dress.

Must, because else we miss the whole point of her murder.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Must, because else we miss the whole point of her murder.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn.

So, do we have the point of Kate's murder or, are you saying therein lies the point, yet to be uncovered?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

It does NOT include a lady who was NOT soliciting,

Debatable.

was NOT strangled,

Debatable.

NOT cut twice

Debatable.

Interesting, thanks, Jon