Same motive = same killer

[jerryd]

I don't think that "Whitechapel monster" refers to Jack the Ripper. I think the paper is referring to the monster (with a lower-case "m", note) who was responsible for the Whitechapel (Pinchin St) torso. If they meant Jack the Ripper, why not use that well-established nickname, or the other well-known handle of Whitechapel Murderer (with upper-case "M")?

It refers to Jack the Ripper, Gareth. I will post the whole article. Read the section "Not Lose Sight of the Man" Sorry the post is large.

[Sam Flynn]

It refers to Jack the Ripper, Gareth. I will post the whole article. Read the section "Not Lose Sight of the Man" Sorry the post is large.

[See image in Jerry's original post]

It says that the police were investigating a statement made at Leman Street police station about the Ripper's involvement, but that they weren't relying only on that theory. For all we know, it was some crank, gossip or amateur sleuth who rocked up at Leman Street with his idea. It was usually one or the other.

Fisherman's earlier observation that "It reads as if they think it was Jack and a partner" isn't correct, as it's stated that the police are pursuing this as a separate theory that two men (not JTR in particular) were responsible, and that they might also have been responsible for an earlier torso case.

The use of the word "alone" in this article is unfortunate, as I'm pretty sure all it means is that the JTR theory wasn't the only one the police were considering.

[Fisherman]

It says that the police were investigating a statement made at Leman Street police station about the Ripper's involvement, but that they weren't relying only on that theory. For all we know, it was some crank, gossip or amateur sleuth who rocked up at Leman Street with his idea. It was usually one or the other.

Fisherman's earlier observation that "It reads as if they think it was Jack and a partner" isn't correct, as it's stated that the police are pursuing this as a separate theory that two men (not JTR in particular) were responsible, and that they might also have been responsible for an earlier torso case.

The use of the word "alone" in this article is unfortunate, as I'm pretty sure all it means is that the JTR theory wasn't the only one the police were considering.

Oh - it is all about unfortunate journalism again.

I see.

Then again, you may have a point this time. Alone may actually reflect back on "theory" instead of on "monster". Well spotted. It would be a tortured sentencing, but since journalists are so unreliable...

But as far as I can see we have a better possibility. After all, they are speculating that the developments will throw light on the former Whitechapel cases. And there were no former Whitechapel Torso cases.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That wouldn't mean that the legs and head were cut off in different locations, though, only at different times - i.e. the body was broken down and the bits carried away in stages; an indicator, perhaps, that this particular killer didn't have access to private transport.

And so would this reduce the likelihood that the Pinchin Street Torso was one of the series?

[Fisherman]

And so would this reduce the likelihood that the Pinchin Street Torso was one of the series?

Not to my mind, no. Hebbert is our best bid, since he saw the wounds and cuts, and he was a renowned expert on forensics. And he was in no doubt about how the four cases all were very alike and most probably the work of the same man.

Once more, if we want the Pinchin Street deed to have been the deed of another man than the one who did Rainham, Whitehall and Jackson, and it really not to be expected that there were two mutilating dismemberers working simultaneously. They are the rarest of creatures, and even today they will not surface in Britain every year. Far from it.

So imagining TWO of them in late victorian London must always take the back seat to Hebberts bid. And the polices. And the press bid. And the bid of most historians and ripperologists.

It really is the logical thing, but as always it applies that it CAN be the other way around. It´s once again pitting possibilities aginst likelihoods, and the odds are it is once again a loosing strategy.

[jerryd]

It says that the police were investigating a statement made at Leman Street police station about the Ripper's involvement, but that they weren't relying only on that theory. For all we know, it was some crank, gossip or amateur sleuth who rocked up at Leman Street with his idea. It was usually one or the other.

The report in the Echo on September 14th was implicating it was a former suspect. IIRC, a former suspect in the ripper murders.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25806&highlight=echo

[Sam Flynn]

And so would this reduce the likelihood that the Pinchin Street Torso was one of the series?

I'd say so, Herlock. There are a number of significant differences between Pinchin and the others: the torso was dumped in the East, not Southwest London; she was beheaded by knife, not saw; her arms were still attached; and no body parts (e.g. the missing legs) were found floating in the river. The latter might have been because they simply weren't found, of course, but it's possible that they were disposed of differently.

[Fisherman]

I'd say so, Herlock. There are a number of significant differences between Pinchin and the others: the torso was dumped in the East, not Southwest London; she was beheaded by knife, not saw; her arms were still attached; and no body parts (e.g. the missing legs) were found floating in the river. The latter might have been because they simply weren't found, of course, but it's possible that they were disposed of differently.

The torsos were all different in a number of ways, so what we have to go on is Hebbert and our insight that it would be unexpected in the extreme to have two mutilating dismemberers at work simultaneously in London.

[Sam Flynn]

The report in the Echo on September 14th was implicating it was a former suspect. IIRC, a former suspect in the ripper murders.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....highlight=echo

The text actually says simply that the man was already under suspcion - not "formerly" suspected, as the headline says. There's certainly no implication in the article that he was a former Ripper suspect.

Even if he were, this only relates to the Leman Street informant's suggestion, which was but one angle the police were pursuing - they seem to have placed more stock in the alternative theory that it was one man (not JTR in particular) and an accomplice who were responsible.

[Fisherman]

The text actually says simply that the man was already under suspcion - not "formerly" suspected, as the headline says. There's certainly no implication in the article that he was a former Ripper suspect.

Even if he were, this only relates to the Leman Street informant's suggestion, which was but one angle the police were pursuing - they seem to have placed more stock in the alternative theory that it was one man (not JTR in particular) and an accomplice who were responsible.

You are quite the lingustic contortionist, Gareth - it´s always good to have an alternative to exploit in harsh times...

Any idea why the Pinchin Street case was supposed to throw light on the former Whitechapel murders specifically?

[Sam Flynn]

The torsos were all different in a number of ways

That excuse won't be good enough here, I'm afraid. There were fundamental differences, and in nature not just degree.

PINCHIN.............. OTHERS
East London......... West London
Knife only............ Knife and saw
Arms attached...... Arms removed

Plus, there's the absence of parts found in the river but, as I say, this might just have been because they washed away unnoticed. Be that as it may, I'm content that the three differences I've listed in the crappy "table" above are strong enough pointers to an entirely different perpetrator(s) for the Pinchin Street case.

[Sam Flynn]

You are quite the lingustic contortionist, Gareth

No, it's just that I always got very high marks for English Comprehension at school. I merely reported what the article actually said, without reading anything into it that wasn't actually there in the text.

[Fisherman]

Can I ask you two questions, Gareth?

1. Which is the likelier thing to you if a series of dismemberment murders is performed in a smallish geographical area over a period of a year or two - that three was one, two or numerous killers?

2. If a forensic expert medico examined all the victims of this theoretical series of dismemberment murders and said that it is highly likely that the same man killed all of the victims in the series, on account of how the cutting technique and the mutilations are very similar within the series, why would we reason that he is likely to have been wrong, based on differences we know that he was fully aware of but didn´t see as any viable reason to alter his verdict?

Can you see what I mean when I say that pitting possibilities agains likelihoods is what I see here?

[Fisherman]

No, it's just that I always got very high marks for English Comprehension at school. I merely reported what the article actually said, without reading anything into it that wasn't actually there in the text.

Well, I guess ingenuity is sometimes rewarded by wideminded teachers...

[Sam Flynn]

Well, I guess ingenuity is sometimes rewarded by wideminded teachers...

You don't get marks for "ingenuity" in Comprehension Tests, Fish. You have to demonstrate that you've understood what's written. In the case of those articles about Pinchin Street, it was not indicated that the police thought that "Jack and a partner" were responsible, nor that a former Ripper suspect had been named in connection with the case.