Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Sam Flynn]

Can John Richardson sit on the stoop's top step and miss Annie's body laying (behind the backyard door) to his left.

A few people argue that, but I'm not one of them. To my mind, there's no way he could have missed the body.

[Sleuth1888]

Well if the body wasn't there then of course he wouldn't see it.

[Abby Normal]

Well if the body wasn't there then of course he wouldn't see it.

hi sleuth
the body wasn't there-he would have seen it.either that or he was the killer and lied.

[Abby Normal]

A few people argue that, but I'm not one of them. To my mind, there's no way he could have missed the body.

agreed sam, if he could see well enough to see the basement door and cut some leather from his boot-which also he sat on the step and was also looking down at his foot-he would have seen the body-no question IMHO.

[Sleuth1888]

hi sleuth
the body wasn't there-he would have seen it.either that or he was the killer and lied.

Hi I tend to agree that the body wasn't there yet and Chapman was killed later, 5.30am or after.

[APerno]

agreed sam, if he could see well enough to see the basement door and cut some leather from his boot-which also he sat on the step and was also looking down at his foot-he would have seen the body-no question IMHO.

I agree with all that the body was likely not there . . . but if we state that there was enough light to "cut some leather from his boot" then we need to rethink just how dark it was when the Ripper cut open Annie.

There seems to be a contradiction regarding light. We say: 'light enough to see the body' but then we say, 'he must have had some anatomic knowledge to remove the uterus in complete darkness.'

So which is it? The light seems to be relative to the argument being made.

(Ouch! Sorry, that one slipped out.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

agreed sam, if he could see well enough to see the basement door and cut some leather from his boot-which also he sat on the step and was also looking down at his foot-he would have seen the body-no question IMHO.

Fish did some diagrams to try and show how Richardson could have missed the corpse (I’m sure that you remember Abby, Sam was in the discussion too) but I just find it close to impossible to believe. You have to have Richardson acting pretty weirdly and sitting in an unlikely position and not looking in certain directions. That particular debate was a chore. Fish was adamant though. And wrong.

[Abby Normal]

I agree with all that the body was likely not there . . . but if we state that there was enough light to "cut some leather from his boot" then we need to rethink just how dark it was when the Ripper cut open Annie.

There seems to be a contradiction regarding light. We say: 'light enough to see the body' but then we say, 'he must have had some anatomic knowledge to remove the uterus in complete darkness.'

So which is it? The light seems to be relative to the argument being made.

(Ouch! Sorry, that one slipped out.)

hi AP
it was never complete darkness at any of the ripper murder scenes.

[Abby Normal]

Fish did some diagrams to try and show how Richardson could have missed the corpse (I’m sure that you remember Abby, Sam was in the discussion too) but I just find it close to impossible to believe. You have to have Richardson acting pretty weirdly and sitting in an unlikely position and not looking in certain directions. That particular debate was a chore. Fish was adamant though. And wrong.

HI HS
oh yes I remember it well-his diagrams inspired me back then to post my own diagram. lol. I agree a lot with fish but not on this point-and posted it as a bit of fun-I think fish got a little chuckle out of it too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HI HS
oh yes I remember it well-his diagrams inspired me back then to post my own diagram. lol. I agree a lot with fish but not on this point-and posted it as a bit of fun-I think fish got a little chuckle out of it too.

Hi Abby,

its a work of genius.

[Lipsky]

Tabram was indeed a victim of the same physical entity "JtR".
The first canonical? The first seen-all-the-way-through trademark , for sure.
I would include all previous attacks recorded earlier that year as well.
Crossingham's had a few skeletons up their closet. Literally.
And right where MJK's loiterer stood .... yet another "coincidence"
Focusing on the strategic scattering of the buildings and the interactions between pinpointed attack women resided therein would have saved a lot of sanity in Abberline
(in his place, I would have become a raging alcoholic, I admit)

[Sam Flynn]

Tabram was indeed a victim of the same physical entity "JtR".
The first canonical? The first seen-all-the-way-through trademark , for sure.

The term "canonical", such as it is, is a shorthand for "one of the Macnaghten Five". Rightly or wrongly, the first "canonical" will always be Polly Nichols.

[Lipsky]

The term "canonical", such as it is, is a shorthand for "one of the Macnaghten Five". Rightly or wrongly, the first "canonical" will always be Polly Nichols.

Dear Sam: My somewhat wordplaying comment was meant to point out that the first fully fledged killing, complete as to the fulfillment of the purpose (terrorism of broader spectators and the other, soon-to-come chosen victims in particular) and at the same time the motive of the killer, which included serving the purpose but went a bit further, (though not in some "self-gratification" aspect as suggested for the most part), is not Polly but Martha.

The date of Martha's murder also had a significance.

[rjpalmer]

One objection to Geographic profiling, among others, is the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

[Michael W Richards]

A few people argue that, but I'm not one of them. To my mind, there's no way he could have missed the body.

Agreed on that Sam.