Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[c.d.]

Well, it's theoretically possible the the author was an expert on medieval literature-maybe he was an English literature professor. On the other hand, maybe he just got the spelling wrong.

And I know what I think is far and away the most likely explanation!

That is hitting the nail on the head, John. I simply don't understand this manic attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. Suppose we find the word juwes in some ancient Sanskrit text. Great find but what does it actually tell us? We have absolutely no way to know if it somehow relates to what Jack intended to convey (and that is assuming that he wrote the damn thing.)

Much ado about nothing. Mr. Occam's razor has been so dulled on this whole juwes thing that it can no longer cut a thing.

c.d.

[John G]

That is hitting the nail on the head, John. I simply don't understand this manic attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. Suppose we find the word juwes in some ancient Sanskrit text. Great find but what does it actually tell us? We have absolutely no way to know if it somehow relates to what Jack intended to convey (and that is assuming that he wrote the damn thing.)

Much ado about nothing. Mr. Occam's razor has been so dulled on this whole juwes thing that it can no longer cut a thing.

c.d.

Thanks c.d. It never ceases to amaze me how some people reject the obvious, or the orthodox view, in favour of their own extreme theories.

Simon Wood, for instance, believes five different killers were responsible for the C5. However, his alternative explanation is that Chapman was killed by an army officer, disguised as the pensioner Ted Stanley and, from what I can make out, the other murders occurred as the result of some grand conspiracy which he doesn't really understand, but it must have happened because of inconsistencies in the evidence!

I mean, how on earth is that a more plausible explanation?