'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[Wickerman]

What? Everyone is in agreement on the ear? Dare I say, I agree too? Collateral damage only, and not the US war on terrorism kind of "collateral".

Mike

Just to take this a step further, not only do I see the sliced earlobe as collateral damage, it occurred (IMO) as a consequence of the diagonal slice across her right cheek.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,
Perhaps promotion was what occurred. However, it was not necessarily intended that way. In the days before TV and Internet, how did the authorities get things in front of people as they asked for help?

They posted photos of wanted men -- especially in post offices here in the States.

Photos and images are postd everywhere in order to get images before the public who MIGHT recognize something. Lost children, lost pets, suspected people, handwriting examples. They are also printed in newspapers.

To me the most likely reason for posting the cards and letters was in the hope that someone, anyone, would recognize the writing. . .

Did promotion happen? yep, you're probably right on that. Was that the intention, was it a conspiracy?
Doesn't seem likely to me.

It appears the authorities were using an avenue they had to ask for help.

curious

Hello Curious, all,

thanks for the reply.

As you youself wrote Curious, the known intention of this promotion was for recognition of the handwriting. Perhaps I am therefor over-simplifying logic, but there are very reasonable questions to be asked here below-

1. What is the point in trying to 'catch' the killer using this method? Because as I wrote earlier, a great majority of the local population were illiterate, so 'Mabel' and 'Malvina' wouldn't be abke to read the prose anyway- and would they therefore be able to recognise 'Fred' or 'John' 's handwriting? I doubt it. When they received letters they went to a tìrd party for the letters to be read to them.
2. The population also had an immense non-English group. They not only could not read English well, if at all, they had problems speaking it. So whatever those letters said, someone would have to translate and re-tell. There were many first generation foreigners in the area.
3. If the writer(s) was literate- he must be- and the killer was the writer (according to the police THEY thouit he was) then the literate population was being aimed at. Which means they could read- read newspapers- so why take somethìng already being splashed across the newspapers wìch they read anyway? Which brings me to recognition of handwriting-
4. If re-sizing was to make recognition easier- logical thought- they are relying on someone wa£ing into a police station and saying ' That looks like my 'Fred's handwriting, or, I have a letter from 'Joe Bloggs' who has the same type of handwriting'. So apart from all the vindictive women wanting to rid themselves of 'Fred' and all the people with examples of letters from people who lived in Scotland, Poland, USA etc- thereby ruling them out of the equation, how in heavens name would similar handwriting, not in the same prose, prove anyone to be a murderer? They only had to say where they were on any one of the murder nights and they cannot have been Jack the Ripper, because the police had already decided that one man was responsible for every murder. No way would they admit there were two maniacs on the loose in the same area- theqe was unbridled panic already!
5. All thoughts of a poor dishevelled Polish Jew connected to the writing on the wall at this stage are zero- he would have to be literate. So exactly when did the 'hand of an enterprising journalist' become clear? Only that would clear the way for an illiterate to be Jack the Ripper.
6. Now IF the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack stuff were hoaxes, the same method of trying to catch Jack was not repeated. The plethora of subsequent letters obviously meant nothing to the police because they DIDNT compare to Dear Boss, Saucy Jack etc. When then did the police drop the import of Dear Boss?
7. There was no reward money- no financial incentive- no 'wanted dead or alive' poster. This wasnt USA where vigilantes got paid for rounding up the naughty cattle. So who, in the police's wisdom, was the poster aimed at?

This example of promotion of ONE killer, ONE Jack the Ripper has ONE clear advantage. It buries a possibility that there could have been more than ONE killer on the loose, which must have occured to the police in October 1888 because of the dissimilarity of the Tabram kiiling vis a vis Eddowes. After all, the swiftness of the Tabram killing would have given the killer TIME to take a soùvenir from her body if the swiftness of the Eddowes murder allowed it.
One month later a report to Anderson indicated 5 only of the same hand- ruling out Tabram. That told the police that there were 2 killers of 6 women on the loose. Did this report reach the media? No. (please correct me if I am wrong)

Up until that report- ONE Jack was thrown at the population. ONE killer only. It was done, imho, not as a conspiracy, but to deliberately prevent even more cries of police incompetanc should they admit to there being more than one killer they couldnt catch. The H6e Secretary was under pressure-Warren was-Anderson even. Only one high ranking man gained any kudos out of all this- Monro- who took over from Warren and hey presto- the killings stopped until way into 1889. Anderson's problems with Parnell was the new spotlight of policework and the murders stopped conveniently during this too.

It is worth remembering that Anderson had his area of expertise in fighting Fenianism, brought in Irish police to Whitechapel during the murders, Monro, Abberline and Williamson and many others were experts in anti-Fenian work. Also that Special Branch were involved in the investigation as well. We know of an Irish interest through them due to Trevor Marriott's revelations of the ledgers. We know that in 1956 comment refering to Fenianism being linked to the murders was thought of, through unseen (to date) police comment about the plot to kill Balfour by it's 'leader'. We know that a newspaper comment after the death of a Coroner in 1920 also attributed suspicions to Fenianism reported by said Coroner to the Home Office at the time.
Does this mean there WAS an Irish connection to all of this? Certainly NOT. I HAVE NO IDEA!

But notice that every single official opinion. At various times from 1888 to 1930 has one thing in common- all suspects are anything BUT Irish. Even though Special were in fact looking at precisely that- and all with Irish connections (Tumblety- via Littlechild in 1913 private letter).

ONE Jack-lowly Polish gutter living Jew- mad barrister/teacher-Russian thief-Russian spy- mad butcher-mad doctor-mad woman-mad physician who expertises in vivisection-Royal Prince- Royal Prince's boyfriend- painter who paints and talks about loose women, degredation and Jack the Riqer in conjuction with said Royal Prince's illegitimate baby and Anderson himself, the painter alöe, a cotton merchant from Livepool, more paimters, an army top whack, a Welsh Doctor, and g Poor Irish ex-boyfriend of Mary Kelly. A memoranda with more mistakes in it than a 6th grade 7ejing test supplied first by a policeman then his daughter who changes her preferance 13 years after keeping the pot boiling through an inventive writer- a marginalia with no substance of provable proof written by a policeman, we are told, that keeps a few more litarary companies happy, an American quack that convinces Americans that Jack was one of theirs and happens to be a best seller too- and a film that gets THE most popular actor on the planet portraying a policeman with a drug problem chasing that elusive Royal physician and a Prince's girlfriends best friend that the spaced out policeman falls in love with, which makes millions to keep the pot boiling. A plethora of tv programmes going over the same old ground again and again, including an over-hyped documentary pointing to Ye Olde Polish Jew given a new facelift through brilliant scene techniques whìch also gets members of the Ripperological communlty acting, writing scripts and advising- but produces no new factual evidence to get us nearer the truth-whatever it ir- spin off books and DVD's, and much much more besides.

The police started the one man Jack promotion which directly involved or led to all of the above and more. And everytime something 'new' gets discovered, the same old Merry-go-Round starts again- more Polish Jew-more naughty barrister-more painter-more Royal Prince and more hype.

Mention ANYTHING other than a one man kilker called Jack the Ripper and all hell breaks loose in Ripperology. Writers are put down, theorists ideas are quashed, gang-like groups attack with verbal vitriol and viciousness, the 'silent' treadtment is tried, people who have had the smell of being near the top of the totem pole of Ripperology obviously feel the collywobbles
and try aj they can to emphasise through all of the above and more, including the classic 'if you dont like it, nobody is forcing you to stay' hint.
The 'we are above you' attitude, the who actually cares about the truth attitude as long as we keep this hobby going stance, the 'proffessional' debators-expert in rhetoric and argumentation- the jokers that are only in it for a laugh, the hoaxers who get their kicks from trying to fool people (and I include McCormick) and make a bob or two in the process, are all spin-offs of the police pro6tion of ONE 'Jack the Ripper'.

Sadly, GENUINE and hard working researchers get swallowed up because their work is 'used' to help promote yet another spin of the Merry Go Round. I feel sorry for them, I really do. Their onlx answer is to remain 'neutral' which doesnt help either because it enhances the stuff the police gave us from 1888 and gets us no further then ONE killer called Jack the Ripper.

Great.

I listed 15 reasons why we simply MUST move away from the traditional view- 15 reasons why without proof, the Eddowes murder can have many more variants tham what we have been given, and 15 reasons to DARE to look in other directions of possibility. This posting will no doubt 2use a mini uproar or embarrassed silence, bring in the 'heavyweights' to counter and condone or the all too visible potty mouths who want to somehow goad it into a personal attack. I wonder who have the bottle to back it? I wonder who dare stand against the traditionalists?
I dont expect total agreement- not at all- but it would be nice to see something.

I will be busy for the next few(3-4) weeks and UNABLE to reply to any replies directed to or at me. My apologies. This posting is a personal opinion only and is MEANT for discussion amongst yourselves, not for me to answer directly. The intention is NOT to provoke, is individually respectful and attacks no individual. That isnt the meaning.

Imho, the biggest blunder is the police promotion of ONE killer. It has led to an industry that used that promotion, and still does, in some cases deliberately in full knowledge that it will shamelessly keep the Merry Go Round turning.

Please discuss amongst yourselves. I wish you all well and hope to be around again in a few (3-4) weeks.

Kind regards

Phil

[Archaic]

Hi Phil.

I feel that the police would have been remiss if they hadn't published broadsides and appealed to the populace for help. They weren't trying to scare the public; they were trying to alert and protect the public.

1888 London actually had a pretty good basic literacy rate. And though many people in England were immigrants who spoke a foreign language, many of them also spoke at least basic English. Either way, I don't think the presence of immigrants was any reason for the police to not even try- after all, the majority of the population spoke and read English.

A modern example of catching a criminal via his handwriting is the Unabomber. Kaczynski got away with his deadly crimes for a long time. It was only when his "manifesto" was published that the FBI got the break they needed to catch him- Ted Kaczynski's own brother recognized the handwriting as well as certain phrases, and he contacted the FBI.

God only knows how many lives were saved because of that.

Best regards,
Archaic

[curious]

Hello Curious, all,

thanks for the reply.

As you youself wrote Curious, the known intention of this promotion was for recognition of the handwriting. Perhaps I am therefor over-simplifying logic,
Phil

Hi, Phil,
If you over-simplified in the first post, you certainly did not in the second.

Without doubt, JtR lines many pockets and is useful to people perhaps more interested in the personal gain than in solving the riddle of those long-ago deaths.

However, it is a far leap from that to believing that the police deliberately misled everyone and continued the deception.

Is there a Fenian angle here somewhere? I don't think we know enough to say for sure. There are certain hints in that direction.

There are so many different types of people on here that I would expect your musings and conclusions to garner both supporters and detractors.

Anyway, whatever you are doing for the next few weeks, I wish you well.

curious

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

I feel that the police would have been remiss if they hadn't published broadsides and appealed to the populace for help. They weren't trying to scare the public; they were trying to alert and protect the public.

1888 London actually had a pretty good basic literacy rate. And though many people in England were immigrants who spoke a foreign language, many of them also spoke at least basic English. Either way, I don't think the presence of immigrants was any reason for the police to not even try- after all, the majority of the population spoke and read English.

A modern example of catching a criminal via his handwriting is the Unabomber. Kaczynski got away with his deadly crimes for a long time. It was only when his "manifesto" was published that the FBI got the break they needed to catch him- Ted Kaczynski's own brother recognized the handwriting as well as certain phrases, and he contacted the FBI.




God only knows how many lives were saved because of that.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hello Archaic, Curious, all,

A very fleeting visit and reply-which is respectfully deserved. - thank you both for your patience and undestanding relating to my absence- which again will occur for a few weeks after this post-my apologies.

A couple of points. I referred NOT to London as a whole as you have done vis a vis literacy, but Wìtechapel, where the immigrant population notably enhanced the lack of ability to both read and write English. It was common that some first generation immigrant families even had problems speaking English, notably the older generation.

i did not state the police TRIED to scare the local poplace, but that their actions did. Those posters propogated the one man killer in their midst theory. As explained earlier, the purpose that someone would recognise the handwriting and or style of written word was pretty pointless if many could not even read NORMAL English, let alone the contrived dramatical prose written in those two examples. For many, the content would have to be explained to them by a thìrd party. THAT THIRD PARTY, already had the opportunity to do exactly that by dint of being able to read the newspapers the letter/postcard was originally printed in anyway. The word would have spread just as easily WITHOUT the posters. So a blow up copy with a pusose of recognition of sorts would serve no other purpose than an 'in your face' scare to emphasise the danger in THEIR midst. If the police did it to try and catch a killer, at THAT moment in time, right on top of 2 fresh murders, then the result was an enhancement of panic- far outweighing any hopeful gain.

Any comparison to a unabomber and what the FBI did is pointless as the two incidents, poplace, time, attiudes and reaction was totally different. A unabomber did not target single poverty stricken women, of which Whìtechapel was full of. He didnt care what type he killed and didnt hunt individuals. He was making a quasi statement of pyshcotic thought. It is not even proven that the murders in Whitmdchapel WERE made by one man- and if Tabram, Coles and McKenzie are ruled out- let alone Stride and Kelly- then you have the distinct plausibility that there were 2, 3 or more killers running about the place. A fact most certainly NOT promoted by Ye Olde Scotlande Yarde. For one obvious reason- they were getting hammered already for their inability to catci ONE killer already. The unabomber case is not sufficiently comparable. The victims were on mass and indescrimimate. The WM victims were chosen individuals from the dregs of society in dark opportune places in a area of ill repute.

As stated above- I posted for discussion pusoses. I posted 15 examples of reason of why we should be looking at other possibles because the presumptions of yesteryear have been based on non provable assumption. Nobody has challenged these 15 facts simply because they are true. But for people to openly say that would mean that assumed one man killer myth would have to be seriously reconsidered- and that, Archaic, blows all known 'jack the Ripper' theories away. And we CANT let that happen can we?

There's an industry to preserve. S*d what the truth might be. Gotta keep Kosminsky afloat, ditto Druitt, ditto Sickert, ditto PAV, etc ad nauseum. Lord knows we cant actually disappoint the craving masses who pay willingly for the ' here's the REAL Jack brigade'. Oh no. Thats not allowed.
Some might deny their role in hoodwinking the general public down the years to the present day.
But you can bet they all know what they do or have done. And some, you can bet, gloat and have gloated in it too.

Thats a far cry from actually genuinely trying to get to the bottom of all this, as a few genuinely dilligent researchers try to do. And what happens to the growing band who say STOP the Merry-go round? A loud and public put down, derision, and encouragement to ignore-as loudly as possible for maximum effect.

What isnt realised is that the time for promoting a one man genius harlot killer is long, long gone. All it gains is money for old rope. Unless incontrovertable evidence comes to light, any auempt by whoever to prove 'Jack' the INDIVIDUAL killing machine existed by any given name is a complete continuation of hoodwinking the public.

The police promoted the idea- dreamt up by a journalist.
Period. Yet shock of all shocks- none of them agreed to whom the killer was. The mightily promoted Swanson- promoted by some here as the all seeing eye of Ripperology, had 7 victims down on his notepad. He had blurred writing on a wall too. He (if you believe it to be not a deliberatmd wind-up) apparently knew of an ID that went against all known practice and convemtion-all without one iota of proof. Amazing man.
Anderson told more stories than Roald Dahl- MacNagthen (with great help from his daughter and a money making author) muddied more wate$ than a Louisiana swamp alligator in heat- and Abberline lived in fairy dairy land promoting a man who (as usual in this case) had not a known scrap of evidence against him...the list of differing police opiniö goes on and on.

What they DO have in common is the plain and simple fact that not ONE written about proposed suspect has even ONE line attached to him in any official file. Anyhere. When we are THEN told that files have been purloined (thats stolen to you and me). Destroyed or are missing- I point out that their names werent seen by the BBC researchers when thez went through the now missing suspects file when they NOTED a load of names. IF Kosminsky And Co Were in that file then- it must have been noticed as thex were KNOWN and named suspects in written Ripperology through various books! So Id think that their names would have been NOTED by the BBC. Sickert ESPECIALLY! (re Barlow and Watt).

Thats why its poppycock-hogwash and hoodwinking. And it wont stop until a totally FRESH attitude is undertaken by those who actually DARE to stand up to the bandwagoneers and say STOP! Lets have some honesty to get to the REAL bottom of all this.

By the way. If Eddowes story of knowing the killer is true- then she wasnt in any real likelxhood killed by the killer of Nicholls and Chapman (Stride wasnt dead when she made the claim)- simply because she is hardly likely to wander off with the man she thinks is a gut slicing killer is she!! As she is alreadz aware of what he has done- he is the LAST bloke she'd walk off with.
So whoever accompanied her into Mitre Square Would have been someone she felt no danger with- or trusted.

Now who would YOU trust more than anyone else? Hmmm.

And knowing how quick word spread- Id bet her 30-40min sojourn around the area gave her info that another woman had been killed that night- with police running all over the place on a man hunt. Even MORE reason NOT to pick up an unknown stranger.

See you all in a few weeks! Discuss and enjoy!

Best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Who Would She Trust?

By the way. If Eddowes story of knowing the killer is true- then she wasnt in any real likelxhood killed by the killer of Nicholls and Chapman (Stride wasnt dead when she made the claim)- simply because she is hardly likely to wander off with the man she thinks is a gut slicing killer is she!! As she is alreadz aware of what he has done- he is the LAST bloke she'd walk off with.
So whoever accompanied her into Mitre Square Would have been someone she felt no danger with- or trusted.

Now who would YOU trust more than anyone else? Hmmm.

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

I suspect that you ask a hypothetical question, but if we make the large assumption that Eddowes did know the killer's identity:

If she genuinely knew the identity of the killer, who would she trust?

Anybody but him perhaps? - I suspect that's not the answer you're looking for!

If she genuinely knew the killer's identity, she might trust him if, for good reason, she was mistakenly confident that he wouldn't kill her.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PhiltheBear]

Ok I'll bite.

Firstly, the list. A lot of the things on that list can be compressed. There aren't 15 points to be 'proved' or 'disproved' but there are certain pieces of evidence that need to be considered. For example, we can't prove when the piece of apron was put there but the evidence is that is was put there. (And put includes dropped, thrown, or similar).

Equally there is no proof of any link between the rag and the writing or writing and the killer. Phil also asserts there's no proof of any link between the killer and the transportation of the rag. But there is prima facie evidence of a link between the killer and the rag - in that it was a) from the victim and b) it was bloodstained. Despite the multitude of other grasping theories the most likely hypothesis is that it was blood from the victim post mortem. Again, no proof, but reasonable evidence.

There's no distinct proof about the time the cloth was left there either - but there is evidence, whether or not you dispute it, about the time of its placing.

Further, the last two items on the list show the impossibility of proving almost anything about the whole JtR story - either the police told the truth or they didn't. On that basis you could believe or disbelieve any witness statement, including all the doctors' examinations for any or all of the murders. To take that position means you either forget the whole thing or start making selective assumptions - which means that you create your own theory. That would be exactly what pretty much every JtR author/'Ripperologist' has been doing for years. If you are selective about the evidence then whatever the theory it will fail.

I submit that Phil's preference for a multitude of murderers is simply another such unwarranted theory. There are reasonable grounds for supposing that some of the victims were killed by the same hand and it has always been my impression that the 'Jack the Ripper' character was the owner of that hand. That others may be reasonably excluded from the list of possible victims does not indicate that the police were looking for one person. It simply meant they were looking for one person for a certain number of crimes. It does not mean that they had any sort of underlying agenda to pin all murders on one person.

Phil asks questions which preclude alternative answers e.g. "NAME ONE person known to be in the area who had the means and opportunity to have taken the rag to Goulstone Street?"

OK Phil: Name ANY person who was in the area who had the means and opportunity to have taken the rag to Goulston Street. There could be hundreds of such people - but we don't know who they were. So posing such a question is meaningless. But, on the fact that the piece of apron was from the victim and the fact that is was found in Goulston Street we are able to say that the greatest possibility is that it was carried there by the killer. But neither you nor I can name him. (And, yes, I admit to the possibility of alternate hypotheses but the balance of probability only points one way).

I fear that the biggest problem here is in a misunderstanding in the way the detective force at the time was constructed and worked. Yes, it had its roots in the Irish Special Branch but it relied almost exclusively, not on detection in the way we know it know, but on being fed information by third parties (snitches). So the idea that the police put up a poster in the hope of getting someone to give them information certainly isn't outlandish - just another extension of trying to get someone to snitch.

More than one killer in Whitechapel? Certainly. But spread over more years than the JtR years. More than one Jack the Ripper? No.

[Monty]

"I fear that the biggest problem here is in a misunderstanding in the way the detective force at the time was constructed and worked."

Absolutely.

Monty

[Carol]

Hi all!
Is Phil the only one who has put forward the theory that a policeman was the killer of Eddowes?
Carol

[Supe]

Carol,

Is Phil the only one who has put forward the theory that a policeman was the killer of Eddowes?

No, it was a contemporary theory. As an example of how old the theory is, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of November 10, 1888, wrote "Much more reasonable would be to infer that the murderer is a member or ex-member of the London police force . . ."

Don.

[Hunter]

A quick note about this so called 'suspect file'...

As Mr. Bonner from the BBC recalled, this was the result of a query sent out by the CO in January 1889 in order to get a handle on intra-divisional and even intercontinental communications between various departments relating to certain suspects... and individuals coming to the attention of police divisions outside of the area that the murders took place.

Back in November, a Joseph Isaacs had evidently come under suspicion and H division police had spent a great deal of time looking for him. After he was finally apprehended in December, it was found that he had been incarcerated at Bow for another offense. I believe CO was trying to make sure that didn't happen again and this compilation file was the result.

This file, naturally, would not have included anyone coming under suspicion post January 1889... and there would have been many more, as we know, on through 1895.

That a lot, if not most of the police files pertaining to this case are now missing is certain... for a variety of natural reasons. The only reason we have a fairly comprehensive catalog of the Home Office files is because they were placed into a central repository for a more permanent record.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

People often write as if in pain when talking about conspiracy theories with Fenian plots as if the very idea is far fetched.

In fact virtually all the major senior police officials had Intelligence and National Security responsibilities that had focused them on Glan-Na-Gael and other offspring for the years leading up to the Ripper murders. There are frequent continental trips taken as counter espionage from the very city Anderson is called home from in the Fall of 88. In a correspondence written in Oct of 88 Warren suggests Gen. Frank Millen as the local mad killer. And many spies and double agents posed a particular problem for HMG and the authorities with the commencement of the Parnell Commission.

I personally think that its possible some radical Irish connections may have existed with some Canonicals and that they may have contributed to their deaths. It is probably much easier to hide a violent murder, or 2, within a murder series by a madman than to commit one in a state of relative calm. And if the actual motive was in some way political, what a great way to confuse the investigators.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

Which 2?

Hello all,

People often write as if in pain when talking about conspiracy theories with Fenian plots as if the very idea is far fetched.

In fact virtually all the major senior police officials had Intelligence and National Security responsibilities that had focused them on Glan-Na-Gael and other offspring for the years leading up to the Ripper murders. There are frequent continental trips taken as counter espionage from the very city Anderson is called home from in the Fall of 88. In a correspondence written in Oct of 88 Warren suggests Gen. Frank Millen as the local mad killer. And many spies and double agents posed a particular problem for HMG and the authorities with the commencement of the Parnell Commission.

I personally think that its possible some radical Irish connections may have existed with some Canonicals and that they may have contributed to their deaths. It is probably much easier to hide a violent murder, or 2, within a murder series by a madman than to commit one in a state of relative calm. And if the actual motive was in some way political, what a great way to confuse the investigators.

Best regards,

Mike R

Hi Michael,

Which 'violent murder or 2' are you thinking of? Stride & another?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Which 'violent murder or 2' are you thinking of? Stride & another?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I believe 2 victims had Irish-related backgrounds and the first used variations of the second's name and address twice in her last 24 hours. Kate and Mary. The medical experts claimed that Kates killer showed less skill and knowledge than shown in the C1and C2 murders and Marys INDOOR murder required only a maniac with a knife.

I think as far as Liz goes, I dont believe the interruption theorizing holds water by the known evidence alone, which means that she was intended to die, not to be mutilated. I believe the person who killed Polly and Annie had mutilation as a goal. Since Liz was killed in a passageway close to the street opposite some cottages with people still awake in them, one might also wonder why the empty yard, and unused stables were seemingly less attractive to the killer as spots that would have allowed more time and less chance of interruption.

I believe the evidence shows that at the very least 2 different men were involved in the Canonical 5 and that the focus exhibited in the first 2 Canonicals is clear. The motive, as it were. Murder for the purpose of abdominal mutilation and abdominal organ extraction. I dont believe its as clear in the later murders, which is why no medical expert suggested a similar motive to the first 2 killings with Canonical victims 3 through 5.

Thats my view on things anyway.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Carol]

Carol,

Is Phil the only one who has put forward the theory that a policeman was the killer of Eddowes?

No, it was a contemporary theory. As an example of how old the theory is, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of November 10, 1888, wrote "Much more reasonable would be to infer that the murderer is a member or ex-member of the London police force . . ."

Don.

Hi Don,
Many thanks for your reply. Much appreciated!
Carol