Examination of a Motive

[Abby Normal]

Firstly I do not suggest that my theories are right. I set out many years ago to re inevstigate this mystery. I was able to do that in an unbiased fashion. Having looked initilally at all the facts surrounding the case. It soon became apparent that the facts and the evidence (little as it was) which people have been seeking to rely upon for 120 years was supect. I therefore set out to prove or disprove some of these facts.

When looking at the organ removal from the victims the suggestion that the killer removed these at the crime scene has been a major part of this mystery.What is there to corroborate this suggestion. As it currently stands the only thing is that some 12 hours after the victims were examined the organs were found to be missing, and the fact that the intestines were ripped out or cut out.

Now I can understand why the masses have automatically put 2 and 2 together and assume that the killer removed them.

As you now I do not subsribe to that theory having regard to how my investigation unfolded and the suggestion that the organs were not removed by the killer at the scene. The facts that i seek to rely on in that suggestion are many and must cause a serious doubt about the original theory.

1. Would the killer have been able to remove those organs given the condition of the body and the abdominal mutilations and the light available to him and the instruments needed to remove them with some precision. Couldnt do it with a 6 inch bladed knife. I belive not

2. The killer wouldnt need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus, so the suggestion that he laid out the inetstines to faciltate the removal doesnt stand up to close scrutiny. The kidney and the uterus both have to stand or fall together you can t say well i dont think he took the kidney but he did take the uterus.

3. Not only would he have had diifficulty in locating the organs but even more difficulty in getting hold of them due to all the blood that would have been in the abdomen.

4.Would he have had time well to be able to answer that one must look at the Eddowes murder and by my calculations based on Pc watkins testimony he would only have had approx 9 mins to kill her mutilate her and remove two vital organs. An impossible task I suggest. All this rubbilsh that has been written on here about the killer reaching in and grabbing hold cutting and slashing etc, again belive that if you wish.

5. The uterus of both victims were removed in two diferent ways as were entries to the abdominal cavities suggesting two different people were responsible. The bodies were taken to two different mortuaries which I would suggest corroborates the latter.

6. If the killer had removed a uterus from Chapman why take another from Eddowes why not another vital organ and for those who say it was sexual. please explain how a kidney can be looked upon as a sexual organ. If that be the case I might have an orgasm everytime I eat a steak and kidney pie putting a whole new meaning to oral sex !

7. If the organs were removed at the mortuaries then some of the internal wounds and cuts which were found at the post mortem stage could have been made in order to effect the removals. That person or person may well have needed to act quickly.

8. As you know in order to prove or disprove this theory i enlsieted the help of a medical team and we conducted some experiments of dead bodies under mortuary conditions. These experiments were fully documented and photographed and made the subject of a powerpoint presenatation which I sent you. In my opinion and the opinion of the medical team who have all reviewed the post mortem reports state that given all the circumstances the killer did not remove those organs.

Now I am not a medical expert and neither are you or many of the others on here so i have to accept what they say. Now if you have any experts who wish to challenge that then I dont have a problem with that.

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery which some including yourself are finding it hard to accept or simply dont want to accept it. But the facts speak for themselves the experts speak for themselves. the pictures speak for themselves. If you dont want to or are not prepared to consider or accept new findings so be it I wont lose any sleep.

We do not know what skill and level or expertise victorian anatomists had so it is unfair to judge a modern day surgeon against a victorian anatomist. I am sure a modern day surgeon could remove a uterus in double quick time under controlled conditions but recreating the victorian crime scene would take him much longer using a long bladed knife. My experts clearly state that almost impossible to remove a kidney with a long bladed knife.

i do not propose to go into a long debate over these issues again but yourself and several others who are obvioulsy new to this have raised issues which I hope i have answered and you are now more au fait with the results of my investigation into this issue.

"If anyone else on here would like a copy of the medical presentation then feel free to PM me with an e mail address."

Lets hope we can put this to bed once and for all.

Hi Trevor

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery

Which is? If Jtr did not remove the organs, who did and why?

[Errata]

i do not propose to go into a long debate over these issues again but yourself and several others who are obvioulsy new to this have raised issues which I hope i have answered and you are now more au fait with the results of my investigation into this issue.

Lets hope we can put this to bed once and for all.

I know your theory. You know I know your theory. You know I disagree with it, you know why, and you know I admire it despite the fact I disagree with it. You and I agree that a sexual motive seems unlikely. I am glad you have medical experts. That's important. And you have absolutely demonstrated that getting a kidney out is not as easy as it may sound. If you feel I have not given your theory the weight it deserves then I apologize. My problem is not with your theory, your experts, or your investigation. My problem is that your tone in these posts is dismissive and belittling. When I have made it clear through all of these posts that I am thinking aloud and feeling my way through, and you challenge me to come up with medical experts to prove an assumption, that is combative. And it's unnecessary. You seem openly hostile and derisive to those who challenge your assumptions. I do not feel I have done anything that warrants being patronized, or looked down on.

Clearly I am new here. Clearly I am not in possession of as many facts as others. That's why I ask questions. As a 32 year old woman, believe me when I say that I have had enough of getting beat on, physically, emotionally, intellectually. I will not ask that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. This is a free forum, and you can do as you like. However, if you cannot communicate with me with the respect and patience I have earned by virtue of being a fellow human, then don't bother. If I wanted to be told that I am an idiot, or incapable of rational thought simply because I disagree, I would still be with my ex. Trevor, I think you have a lot to offer and a lot you can teach. But only if you can respect us. And I will try to make sure that any communication I have with you is a respectful as I would wish for myself.

[Errata]

The outcome of all of this in this case is that I am slightly surprised that I am the one promoting the no-nonsense scenario here, whereas you opt for the more exotic line. Since you come across as a very sensible, rational and openminded poster, with lots of good sense and facts to back up your thinking, I think I may need to leave the door ajar on this issue. But only a little, since I really do believe that the collateral damage suggestion comes quite close to slamming that door shut...!

The best,
Fisherman

I don't know. Maybe it's the long buried actress in me that craves something more dramatic. And it's kind of odd that I sort of cling to the cheek flaps being done purposefully, especially since even I cannot see the point in it, and don't know why he would have bothered. The best I can come up with is that it reminds me of something that I cannot yet place. I think that's what my gut instincts usually are, a sort of flag that says "hey, you know more about this than you think you do". Unfortunately, until my poor brain gets around to retrieving whatever it is and allowing me to compare it to the situation at hand, I can't tell if my gut instinct is applicable, or some stray memory (like a Halloween costume someone wore in 7th grade or something). Mostly when I get to this point I sort of start thinking out loud, which is what a lot of this is. A sort of intellectual stalking where I start circling inward until I find it. All of which is to say, I haven't ruled out collateral damage. Until I find the thing on the tip of my brain however, It's not going to feel right to me.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

"The example you quote is not in line with The Ripper murders we are talking about i.e Chapman and Eddowes..

The above murder was committed under controlled circumstances the killer had time to remove the clothes and to take out the organs at his leisure in full light it would seem. He also has removed all the stomach and internal organs which would not be to difficult as is proved in the kelly case which your case mirrors

The argument is could it have been done having regard to the crime scene and the conditions of the bodies in 1888.those murders are not in line with your example. Good Try !!!!!"

Thanks, Trevor! Well, of course the surrounding factors differed - they will do, from crime scene to crime scene. But I think we need to realize that Gingerich gave himself a harder task than the Ripper in a couple of details: he only opened the abdomen by a seven-inch hole. That means that he worked from a much smaller opening that the Ripper did. And he shoved his arm through that opening, grabbing for the organs, meaning that he did not see them as he extracted them. Therefore the light enters the equation in a much smaller extent than you suggest.
Secondly, you state that the blood in the abdominal cavity would have hindered the Ripper somewhat, but we know for a fact that he bled his victims of to a significant extent by means of throat-cutting. No such thing in Gingerichīs case, Iīm afraid, meaning that he rummaged about inside his wife through a seven inch hole, shoving his arm into a dark, blood-filled cavity, and STILL managed to retrieve lungs, kidneys, stomach, liver, spleen, bladder, uterus and heart.
To me, that says that a medically untrained and unexperienced man can extract any organ from the abdominal AND thorax cavity through a seven-inch hole, thus not even cutting the abdomen totally open or breaking the ribcage. Therefore I find that Gingerich and his steak knife makes for a very good disclaimer to just about any suggestion that the Ripper could not have retrieved singular organs by means of bleeding his victims of and ripping the entire abdomen open, like we know that he did. After that, it would have been very easy pickings.

The one trouble would be that a kidney is hidden from sight, and therefore it could be argued that the Ripper would have known where to cut. And that holds true only if we can prove that he was actively searching for a kidney, something I believe most of us will have some trouble doing. Once he set eye on that kidney, however (or felt it in the darkness), and decided that he wanted it, the cutting would have given him no problems - as shown by Edward Gingerich. Please also keep in mind that we do not know how the kidney looked after that cutting - many will perhaps think that he extracted it in a clinical fashion, but the truth is that it may have come out in pieces, more or less - we know that part of it was left in the body, just as we know that the killer messed things up to a large extent with the rest of the cutting, carved and leaking colons and all ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor!

I am not a medical man, and even less a surgeon. You admit that the same goes for you, and so you rely on the team of experts you refer to. And one thing you say about them is:

"My exeperts clearly state that almost impossible to remove a kidney with a long bladed knife."

Not being a medical man, I try to use what has been empirically proven to be true, whenever such knowledge is at hand. That is not too often, luckily, taking into account the character of the Ripper deeds.

But when it comes to removing organs using long-bladed knives, I lean much against what Edward Gingerich did to his wife on March 18, 1993. It is well documented, and it seems that he was able to do what your experts say is nigh on impossible. And Gingerich had one thing in common with you and me, Trevor - he was no medical man, and even less a surgeon.

Here is the account:

"After a few minutes, Ed dropped to his knees and undressed Katie's body. Once all of her clothes were removed, he took a steak knife from the kitchen drawer and used it to make a seven-inch incision in her lower abdomen. Through the incision, Ed reached his hand up inside Katie's body cavity, and removed her lungs, kidneys, stomach, liver, spleen, bladder, uterus and heart. He stacked all of her organs in a pile next to her body, and stuck the knife into the top of them."

The best,
Fisherman

The example you quote is not in line with The Ripper murders we are talking about i.e Chapman and Eddowes..

The above murder was committed under controlled circumstances the killer had time to remove the clothes and to take out the organs at his leisure in full light it would seem. He also has removed all the stomach and internal organs which would not be to difficult as is proved in the kelly case which your case mirrors.

You dont know if he went for the kidny first this is the crux of the argument the kidney is difficult locate with all the other organs in place

The argument is could it have been done having regard to the crime scene and the conditions of the bodies in 1888.those murders are not in line with your example. Good Try !!!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

So now we have psychic organ theiving doctors. Doctors who know what a bone saw is, know what a spine is, and yet use a dull knife and retarded skill to attempt to sever the head of two seperate victims on two seperate occassions in two seperate locations.

So when Dr. Bond said absent, what he should have said is I do not see the heart but stiching stuff together will make it appear? Really, a medical man, trained at university misplaced the single most important organ in the thoracic cavity? Rather than maybe the papers who have proven themselves wrong repeatedly making mistakes or lying. This is what your gonna float?

Did it occur to you that a single organ compared to the rest of the mayhem is a small portion?

Just so I am clear, we now having organ theiving doctors who refuse to use the correct tools and still fail in their illeagal scientific quest for heads?

We also have papers who described the ripper even though he clearly was never identified being taken on the same merit as a university trained physician?

And these two premises are more logical in the explaining of victim wounds than the the man that killed them did it?

Oh and I forgot, your earlier assertion of a small amount of facial injuries being inflicted at the mortuary. So they were in fact psychic, incompetant Dr.s who need heads but cut them up first. This is your counter? Are you high? Dave

Take the blinkers and the rose tinted spectacles off go to the doctor and ask to be put on the list for a brain transplant because your posts suggest to me that the one you have is not functioning correctly. I have tried to be helpful to you in your quest but you obvioulsy are not prepared to be helped so you carry on beliveing what you want to belive after all it is a free world and everyone is entitked to their opinion. But please dont keeping ramming it down our throats on here its becoming boring

[Fisherman]

Hi Trevor!

I am not a medical man, and even less a surgeon. You admit that the same goes for you, and so you rely on the team of experts you refer to. And one thing you say about them is:

"My exeperts clearly state that almost impossible to remove a kidney with a long bladed knife."

Not being a medical man, I try to use what has been empirically proven to be true, whenever such knowledge is at hand. That is not too often, luckily, taking into account the character of the Ripper deeds.

But when it comes to removing organs using long-bladed knives, I lean much against what Edward Gingerich did to his wife on March 18, 1993. It is well documented, and it seems that he was able to do what your experts say is nigh on impossible. And Gingerich had one thing in common with you and me, Trevor - he was no medical man, and even less a surgeon.

Here is the account:

"After a few minutes, Ed dropped to his knees and undressed Katie's body. Once all of her clothes were removed, he took a steak knife from the kitchen drawer and used it to make a seven-inch incision in her lower abdomen. Through the incision, Ed reached his hand up inside Katie's body cavity, and removed her lungs, kidneys, stomach, liver, spleen, bladder, uterus and heart. He stacked all of her organs in a pile next to her body, and stuck the knife into the top of them."

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Boys... boys.. you're both pretty.

Trevor: I am not required to have medical experts in order to have an opinion. However, according to my father, who is an OB/GYN specializing in surgery A: a medically correct hysterectomy can take place in a little less than half an hour and B: From an surgical perspective, no two emergency hysterectomies take place the same way. It is defined by the surrounding trauma. And that's assuming a hysterectomy is a valid medical model, given that one is supposed to be otherwise unharmed after a hysterectomy. I never said the pose Chapman was found in facilitated organ removal. I said it could aid in it's location. If you would like a detailed account as to why, I will be happy to tell you, or you could ask any woman who has ever had a pelvic exam.

As for the kidney. I don't know, and I've said I don't know. Nobody knows. For all I know Jack the ripper took the uterus, and a doctor took the kidney. Or a cop took it to play a prank on his landlady. Or she never had one. We don't know.

A hysterectomy was an abusively common surgery in Victorian times. It was used to "calm hysteria". Which translates into "cure disobedience" in many cases. Cutting one out of a dead prostitute in an ice shed makes little sense to me. Especially given the contempt with which female patients were treated. Any doctor who wanted a uterus could come in to the hospital and cut one out of a live patient themselves, no matter how unskilled or untried they were, as long as someone with surgical privileges at that hospital was present. My father tells me it was not uncommon to use hysterectomies as training for "real" surgery.

Trevor, you don't know. Nobody does. You have a theory. And not a bad one. But it isn't proven. It can't be proven. None of this can. Unlike you, I don't have theory. I have notions, ideas, gut feelings even. I do not agree with your theory. It's intriguing, and it raises a lot of questions. And that's fantastic. A good theory should raise questions, even if you don't agree with it. But we are scholars in this. Not judge and jury. I do not feel the need to prove you wrong, or to prove me right for that matter. It can't be done anyway.

I want you to tell me your theory because it educates me on the case, and opens my mind to new possibilities. And I will tell you where I think the holes in your theory are, so you can make the best possible argument. But I will never tell you that you are wrong. And I will never ask you to prove it. And I will never say that your theory is impossible because it doesn't agree with mine. For many reasons, but chiefly because of this. I want you to think. I want you to have your eyes opened. I want you to be open to new thoughts and ideas. Jack the Ripper is long dead, and nothing we discuss will ever either bring justice, or prove his identity. But we are all teachers and students, and we use this crime as our thought exercise. We use this crime to learn how to form a thesis, or how to see the world from the view of a long dead generation. We learn to defend ourselves academically, and how to plow through a gut feeling to find the source of the problem. We learn to think critically. We learn to empathize. We learn about poverty and bigotry and the evils of an impenetrable class system. If all you are interested in is being right, I think you will be disappointed in the end. I would hope that if I were to come up with a theory, you would treat it the way I treat yours. Disagree with it all you like, but help me make it better anyway.

Well now that I got all preachy, I'm getting a popsicle.

Firstly I do not suggest that my theories are right. I set out many years ago to re inevstigate this mystery. I was able to do that in an unbiased fashion. Having looked initilally at all the facts surrounding the case. It soon became apparent that the facts and the evidence (little as it was) which people have been seeking to rely upon for 120 years was supect. I therefore set out to prove or disprove some of these facts.

When looking at the organ removal from the victims the suggestion that the killer removed these at the crime scene has been a major part of this mystery.What is there to corroborate this suggestion. As it currently stands the only thing is that some 12 hours after the victims were examined the organs were found to be missing, and the fact that the intestines were ripped out or cut out.

Now I can understand why the masses have automatically put 2 and 2 together and assume that the killer removed them.

As you now I do not subsribe to that theory having regard to how my investigation unfolded and the suggestion that the organs were not removed by the killer at the scene. The facts that i seek to rely on in that suggestion are many and must cause a serious doubt about the original theory.

1. Would the killer have been able to remove those organs given the condition of the body and the abdominal mutilations and the light available to him and the instruments needed to remove them with some precision. Couldnt do it with a 6 inch bladed knife. I belive not

2. The killer wouldnt need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus, so the suggestion that he laid out the inetstines to faciltate the removal doesnt stand up to close scrutiny. The kidney and the uterus both have to stand or fall together you can t say well i dont think he took the kidney but he did take the uterus.

3. Not only would he have had diifficulty in locating the organs but even more difficulty in getting hold of them due to all the blood that would have been in the abdomen.

4.Would he have had time well to be able to answer that one must look at the Eddowes murder and by my calculations based on Pc watkins testimony he would only have had approx 9 mins to kill her mutilate her and remove two vital organs. An impossible task I suggest. All this rubbilsh that has been written on here about the killer reaching in and grabbing hold cutting and slashing etc, again belive that if you wish.

5. The uterus of both victims were removed in two diferent ways as were entries to the abdominal cavities suggesting two different people were responsible. The bodies were taken to two different mortuaries which I would suggest corroborates the latter.

6. If the killer had removed a uterus from Chapman why take another from Eddowes why not another vital organ and for those who say it was sexual. please explain how a kidney can be looked upon as a sexual organ. If that be the case I might have an orgasm everytime I eat a steak and kidney pie putting a whole new meaning to oral sex !

7. If the organs were removed at the mortuaries then some of the internal wounds and cuts which were found at the post mortem stage could have been made in order to effect the removals. That person or person may well have needed to act quickly.

8. As you know in order to prove or disprove this theory i enlsieted the help of a medical team and we conducted some experiments of dead bodies under mortuary conditions. These experiments were fully documented and photographed and made the subject of a powerpoint presenatation which I sent you. In my opinion and the opinion of the medical team who have all reviewed the post mortem reports state that given all the circumstances the killer did not remove those organs.

Now I am not a medical expert and neither are you or many of the others on here so i have to accept what they say. Now if you have any experts who wish to challenge that then I dont have a problem with that.

I have introduced a new theory to this mystery which some including yourself are finding it hard to accept or simply dont want to accept it. But the facts speak for themselves the experts speak for themselves. the pictures speak for themselves. If you dont want to or are not prepared to consider or accept new findings so be it I wont lose any sleep.

We do not know what skill and level or expertise victorian anatomists had so it is unfair to judge a modern day surgeon against a victorian anatomist. I am sure a modern day surgeon could remove a uterus in double quick time under controlled conditions but recreating the victorian crime scene would take him much longer using a long bladed knife. My experts clearly state that almost impossible to remove a kidney with a long bladed knife.

i do not propose to go into a long debate over these issues again but yourself and several others who are obvioulsy new to this have raised issues which I hope i have answered and you are now more au fait with the results of my investigation into this issue.

"If anyone else on here would like a copy of the medical presentation then feel free to PM me with an e mail address."

Lets hope we can put this to bed once and for all.

[protohistorian]

So now we have psychic organ theiving doctors. Doctors who know what a bone saw is, know what a spine is, and yet use a dull knife and retarded skill to attempt to sever the head of two seperate victims on two seperate occassions in two seperate locations.

So when Dr. Bond said absent, what he should have said is I do not see the heart but stiching stuff together will make it appear? Really, a medical man, trained at university misplaced the single most important organ in the thoracic cavity? Rather than maybe the papers who have proven themselves wrong repeatedly making mistakes or lying. This is what your gonna float?

Did it occur to you that a single organ compared to the rest of the mayhem is a small portion?

Just so I am clear, we now having organ theiving doctors who refuse to use the correct tools and still fail in their illeagal scientific quest for heads?

We also have papers who described the ripper even though he clearly was never identified being taken on the same merit as a university trained physician?

And these two premises are more logical in the explaining of victim wounds than the the man that killed them did it?

Oh and I forgot, your earlier assertion of a small amount of facial injuries being inflicted at the mortuary. So they were in fact psychic, incompetant Dr.s who need heads but cut them up first. This is your counter? Are you high? Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Trevor part of her fell out of her clothes at the mortuary. Which a. means that unless the liberated piece fell into her pocket whist struggling, it is unlikely that was the point of severance. and b. that a piece of the ear was missing and so obsevable at the crime scene. Even if we do not have an account of it being described as missing at the scene, it was in fact so.Unless your clever facial mutilating organ thieves put it in her clothes to through everyone who has studied the case for a century but YOU off the trail.

as to the missing heart, "The pericardium was open below and the heart absent." While this comes from the post mortem and not the scene (MY MISTAKE) it is not a facial injury as you suggest. I understand Ripperologists love to chase their tales by being clever and debating what absent means because there is more than 1 meaning in the dictionary.
Here is my take, he does not say the heart is in the thorax. As the other removed organs are described by location in the room and the heart is not, the heart is in fact ABSENT!

On to your Anatomy Actof 1832. So in the 46 years between passing and the murders we have NO confirmed cases of body part snatching in London, but when our string of killings start evil dismembering organ thieves flock to the mortuaries of London to snatch parts from these very special impoverished unfortuneates? But not all of the unfortuneates killed in 1888, just the M5 because they are psychic organ theives and know this will be the historical grouping and cause us the most confusion.
Sometimes you scare me Buddy. Dave

If I scare you, Hmmmmmmmm well you simply terrify me with your one sided negative approach to the investigation. You seem to have a habit of putting pen to paper before you fully engage your brain. (see last para)

The anatomy act allowed doctors surgeons, medical student and antaomists to freely and "LAWFULLY" go to mortuaries and take away organs and some time bodies. There is no suggestion of as you put it "Organ thieves"

As far as Kelly heart is concerned as i said there is a serious doubt surrounding this issue. "ABSENT" in my interperation does not mean missing as in taken away it means what the doctor meant it to mean missing from the pericardium.

The coroner for some reason chose not to conduct a full inquest however i have listed below some extacts from newpaper articles at the time.
please read and disgest. I think this tips the scales in favour of the heart "NOT" being taken away"

The Times 10th November

The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.

The Echo 12th November

Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body..

The Times 12th November

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ― hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.

[Fisherman]

Errata:

"I read through the thread, and it was fantastic. Thank you.

I'm still not sure I agree with it however. It's funny how it depends completely on what you see in you head. With terrible pictures and sketched to go on, we can see the exact same wounds differently."

Thatīs how it is and thatīs how it should be. It makes for the best environment possible if we are to move forward with the Ripper riddle.
My stance, however, is guided in this particular detail by the fact that I mostly prefer a simple solution when it is to be found, and when it represents a credible interpretation of what happened. That is why Jon Smythes explanation appealed very much to me.
I cannot say that this always applies in my case, though - there are other occasions when I believe that a simple explanation stands in the way of a less simple, but still better interpretation. I guess thatīs why we speak of gut feelings and such.

The outcome of all of this in this case is that I am slightly surprised that I am the one promoting the no-nonsense scenario here, whereas you opt for the more exotic line. Since you come across as a very sensible, rational and openminded poster, with lots of good sense and facts to back up your thinking, I think I may need to leave the door ajar on this issue. But only a little, since I really do believe that the collateral damage suggestion comes quite close to slamming that door shut...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Ouch! Leave my ears alone."

Will do, Lynn. Funny how oneīs mind wanders at times ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

I just finished a grape one. I'm thinking of going for a hibiscus one next.

[protohistorian]

Errata to hell with pretty, give us a popsicle. Dave

[corey123]

Hello Errata,

Well put! Bravo, however I have one very important inquiry.

What, mind you, is the flavor of said popsicle?