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

[curious]

One quick note, however, on the second point. Both Mr. Bond and Mr. Brown did give a motive to the killer they believed murdered more than just Nichols and Chapman. They called his condition 'satyriasis.'

Hi, Hunter,
Thanks for giving the condition a name. Now, where can we find an explanation of the condition as the doctors would have understood it in 1888?

The current usage that I have found (with what I admit was cursory research) does not fit my observation of the JtR killings.

Thanks,

curious

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

The story about the medico you refer to and the misconception is coming soon.

One quick note, however, on the second point. Both Mr. Bond and Mr. Brown did give a motive to the killer they believed murdered more than just Nichols and Chapman. They called his condition 'satyriasis.' Even Percy Clark, who stated to an East End Observer reporter that he attributed 3 murders to one man apparently was including Kelly because he showed the now infamous photo of Kelly to the reporter as he was describing the Ripper murders as the work of a 'homicidal maniac.'

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Hunter,

Ill have to ask you to provide some proof of your misconception labels mate.

To my knowledge senior medical opinion by someone who saw more dead Canonicals first hand than anyone stated that the killer of Kate was not skilled nor particularly knowledgeable. For my part I cant see why a man who extracts a kidney through her front in the dark inside 8 minutes wouldnt be considered skilled...but I didnt see and examine the dead women. He did.

On the second statement again, to my knowledge, no senior medical official linked any Canonical death by perceived ulterior motive other than Polly and Annie. With Liz thats clearly evident, with Kate the "business model" exhibited in C1 and C2 changes as does the skill and knowledge, not to mention jurisdiction.... and with Mary its impossible to state with any authority that the killer sought to mutilate her abdomen and extract and take abdominal organs. As was fairly clearly evident to the authorities in the first 2 murders.

All the best Hunter,

Mike R

[Hunter]

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.

That is a common misconception.

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.

That last sentence is another common misconception.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[Carol]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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