JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis

[MrBarnett]

So the answer is you don't know for now? I am waiting for your source that doubts it.

No, after you. You made the claim. What are your sources? Are you based in the UK? Do you you know where police officers, nurses, doctors, judges etc obtain their work clothes?

What's more important in this discussion is whether you have any research to back up your claims.

Someone who blithely admits not to have researched the cases tried at the Old Bailey and yet poses as an authority on violent crime in Victorian London needs to put up or the alternative.

[John G]

Continuing on from here... https://forum.casebook.org/showthrea...t=11006&page=6



I suspect they bought their own uniforms and had them made to size and therefore could still own them.

I think JtR was extremely specific about not getting blood on himself and this was critical to his attacks, except for Kelly, where he had free reign of the home so to speak. This is evidence I have for this here. https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10998

There are tons of reasons for him to be off his beat and one of them is helping out looking for the ripper. He could be going home, going to work or claim he has been sent on a task.

Best of all, he may have inside knowledge of not just police beats, but stakeouts and would know who the plainclothed officers were.

But he must surely have got some blood and gore on his person as a consequence of the eviscerations.

None of the key witnesses, such as Lawende, reported seeing an unidentified officer near to the scene of a murder.

If seen unexpectedly by another officer he could perhaps have claimed, during the latter murders, that he was one of the extra officers drafted into Whitechapel and that he'd simply gotten himself lost, but presumably his presence would then have been reported.

[Elamarna]

So the answer is you don't know for now? I am waiting for your source that doubts it.

The question is what are your sources for suggesting that london police officers in 1888 bought their own uniforms?

Steve

[Batman]

No, after you. You made the claim. What are your sources? Are you based in the UK? Do you you know where police officers, nurses, doctors, judges etc obtain their work clothes?

What's more important in this discussion is whether you have any research to back up your claims.

Someone who blithely admits not to have researched the cases tried at the Old Bailey and yet poses as an authority on violent crime in Victorian London needs to put up or the alternative.

I don't have any sources for it. I said I 'suspect' it. I didn't say I knew it for certain.

You suspect not it seems. How is your claim any different on that front?

As for the Old Bailey database, I asked a question and you didn't reply to it.

[MrBarnett]

I don't have any sources for it. I said I 'suspect' it. I didn't say I knew it for certain.

You suspect not it seems. How is your claim any different on that front?

As for the Old Bailey database, I asked a question and you didn't reply to it.

For someone who references Euclid to support his case, your 'suspicion' is somewhat underwhelming. I'm guessing you know nothing at all about contemporary public service uniforms in the UK.

As for the OB, does this ring a bell?

[Batman]

But he must surely have got some blood and gore on his person as a consequence of the eviscerations.

There was very little blood on the apron piece. That's important.

Listen to what Brown says.

The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death ... There would not be much blood on the murderer.

I think Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown understood that exsanguination had occurred before the offender mutilates their abdomen. Which is what I was talking about in the link that explained why lack of blood on himself was important to him. There is also the psychological problem of getting the blood of a target he despises on himself.

I think with Chapman and Eddowes only a cloth and a public water basin would have sufficed.

None of the key witnesses, such as Lawende, reported seeing an unidentified officer near to the scene of a murder.

Right, however at first glance this seems against the idea of an officer, until you read about the whole case, police beats and witnesses and suddenly even officers aren't mentioning seeing other officers and witnesses aren't seeing them and officers aren't seeing witnesses, etc. If JtR was in plain sight, then this is what would be plain sight. So plain, they don't bother to mention it.

If seen unexpectedly by another officer he could perhaps have claimed, during the latter murders, that he was one of the extra officers drafted into Whitechapel and that he'd simply gotten himself lost, but presumably his presence would then have been reported.

He could just claim to be going it alone like Lusk's men but simply claiming he had something to do police-wise across town might be sufficient.

[Batman]

For someone who references Euclid to support his case, your 'suspicion' is somewhat underwhelming. I'm guessing you know nothing at all about contemporary public service uniforms in the UK.

As for the OB, does this ring a bell?

[ATTACH]18894[/ATTACH]

I didn't reference Euclid to support my case. I mentioned Euclid has optics in geometry when people reference Euclid for geometry without optics.

I don't know about public service uniforms in the UK in 1888.

As for your attachment, remember I said that what you found would be unique IF it isn't associated with other violent crimes against women. That's an example of a violent crime against a woman. You need to find it not used at the time for a violent crime against a woman.

[MrBarnett]

For someone who references Euclid to support his case, your 'suspicion' is somewhat underwhelming. I'm guessing you know nothing at all about contemporary public service uniforms in the UK.

As for the OB, does this ring a bell?

[ATTACH]18894[/ATTACH]

Graham's injury was reported in the press as being to her 'abdomen'. The record of her admission to the London Hospital makes it clear it was to her vagina. Researcher Rob Clack picked up on that detail.

I've seen much more gruesome injuries described in the OB records than Ellen Worsfold's single wound.

[Elamarna]

I don't have any sources for it. I said I 'suspect' it. I didn't say I knew it for certain.

You suspect not it seems. How is your claim any different on that front?

As for the Old Bailey database, I asked a question and you didn't reply to it.

Ok what leads you to suspect it?

Or is that such simply fits a theory you are formulating.

I am from a science background, i expect evidence to support theories or else we just have idle speculation.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

I didn't reference Euclid to support my case. I mentioned Euclid has optics in geometry when people reference Euclid for geometry without optics.

I don't know about public service uniforms in the UK in 1888.

As for your attachment, remember I said that what you found would be unique IF it isn't associated with other violent crimes against women. That's an example of a violent crime against a woman. You need to find it not used at the time for a violent crime against a woman.

You aren't really asking me to provide you with examples of OB cases involving violent crimes against women? One of the most important sources and you are totally ignorant of it?

OK. So who are you really. This is a wind-up, right?

[Batman]

Graham's injury was reported in the press as being to her 'abdomen'. The record of her admission to the London Hospital makes it clear it was to her vagina. Researcher Rob Clack picked up on that detail.

I've seen many more gruesome injuries described in the OB records than Ellen Worsfold's single wound.

Found it

https://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=142774&postcount=58

I checked the London Hospital Archives today to have a look at the admission and discharge register for 1895, as that would tell us why Alice Graham was admitted.
The wound was described as "wound of Vag' wall" so it's not surprising the newspapers did not go into to much detail. And it is also not surprising his whereabouts in 1888 were looked into.
Whether Balfour pointed out Le Grand or Grainger, Grainger is a lot more likely to have been the ripper then Le Grand.

So there ya go. You have one event. 1895, seven years later, but in the same area.

However, after 1888 and a few years down the line we would be expecting the odd nut to try a JtR style attack there, as they do today.

[John G]

Graham's injury was reported in the press as being to her 'abdomen'. The record of her admission to the London Hospital makes it clear it was to her vagina. Researcher Rob Clack picked up on that detail.

I've seen much more gruesome injuries described in the OB records than Ellen Worsfold's single wound.

Just out of interest, wasn't Graham's attacker, Grant, disturbed by a police officer, presumably before he could inflict even more serious injuries?

[Batman]

Ok what leads you to suspect it?

Or is that such simply fits a theory you are formulating.

I am from a science background, i expect evidence to support theories or else we just have idle speculation.


Steve

I said "I suspect", so was speculating. It is not a scientific claim. I suspect it because it could help bolster the theory.

I am from a science background also and I doubt anything scientific can actually be done in this case except modeling in pathology. DNA contamination sees an end to that sort of confirmation also, for the better part.

[Elamarna]

I said "I suspect", so was speculating. It is not a scientific claim. I suspect it because it could help bolster the theory.

I am from a science background also and I doubt anything scientific can actually be done in this case except modeling in pathology. DNA contamination sees an end to that sort of confirmation also, for the better part.

I see, it's pure speculation to support a theory, for which you have no actual evidence.
The suggestion that the police were somehow trained to subdue and overcome people is likewise pure speculation.


Your comment confuses me, one can take a scientific approach to whatever evidence their is, it does not mean we have to have "scientific evidence".



Steve

[MrBarnett]

Found it

https://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=142774&postcount=58

I checked the London Hospital Archives today to have a look at the admission and discharge register for 1895, as that would tell us why Alice Graham was admitted.
The wound was described as "wound of Vag' wall" so it's not surprising the newspapers did not go into to much detail. And it is also not surprising his whereabouts in 1888 were looked into.
Whether Balfour pointed out Le Grand or Grainger, Grainger is a lot more likely to have been the ripper then Le Grand.

So there ya go. You have one event. 1895, seven years later, but in the same area.

However, after 1888 and a few years down the line we would be expecting the odd nut to try a JtR style attack there, as they do today.

And no doubt the press and the OB only started to get reluctant to use the word vagina after the Ripper? Are you suggesting that all deliberate injuries to women's 'private parts' post 1888 were inspired by JTR?

How were Mary Ann Austin's wounds reported on, do you remember?

Not sure if you're aware, but you are clutching at increasingly small straws.