Fuelled by publicity?

[Phil H]

One can say that Barnett, Fleming or a Fenian killed Mary, but there's not a shred of evidence that one of them did. There is good evidence that the same person that killed, at least Chapman and Eddowes,may have killed Mary Kelly also.

If there's no evidence someone else killed Mary, but "Jack" only MAY have killed her, doesn't that effectively put both interpretations of events on the same level?

I am not seeking to put all my eggs in any one basket, simply arguing for an open mind, that covers all possibilities. As your post surely demonstrates, Hunter, the available evidence really cannot sustain certainty.

Phil

[TomTomKent]

One can say that Barnett, Fleming or a Fenian killed Mary, but there's not a shred of evidence that one of them did. There is good evidence that the same person that killed, at least Chapman and Eddowes,may have killed Mary Kelly also.

If there's no evidence someone else killed Mary, but "Jack" only MAY have killed her, doesn't that effectively put both interpretations of events on the same level?

I am not seeking to put all my eggs in any one basket, simply arguing for an open mind, that covers all possibilities. As your post surely demonstrates, Hunter, the available evidence really cannot sustain certainty.

Phil

If there was any level of certainty, or even any stable probability that suggests "Victims A, B, C, D, E are all the same hand" then life would be considerably less taxing for those with an interest in the case. As it is we instead have the question of which, if any, of the canonical victims were killed by the same hand with theories ranging from zero to all five, but also taaking into account the broad spectrum of other victims, before after or during the series may also have been the work of the Ripper.

The issue unfortunately is not one of what is probable, but what is possible and what is plausible. You are quite right, we have to remain open to all possibilities and judge each against the evidence we have to hand, which unfortunately does not allow us to make anything more than an educated guess. The general concensus is not "Jack the ripper killed these five women," but "these five women seem to constitute the know victims in a series of murders that appear to be by the same hand."

I know that was a very picky way to agree with you Phil, so sorry about that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If, as observed by a coroner, the ultimate aim of the murderer was to obtain internal organs from his victims, then that explains why he committed more than one murder.

He failed to obtain one the first time because he was disturbed, and that is why he then committed a murder in Hanbury Street.

He failed again in Berner Street for the same reason, and that is why he committed a second murder that night in Mitre Square.

In the cases of the three murders where there is no evidence that he was disturbed before he could excise any organs, organs were missing.

There is evidence that the murderer was following press coverage and local public reaction to the murders.

He must have known of the march down Hanbury Street during which marchers chanted 'Down with the Jews!' and alleged that the murderer was a Jew.

He may also have read or heard of the newspaper report that writing had been found on the wall next to the victim in Hanbury Street.

The very next night that a murder was committed, writing was actually found practically pointing at a bloody piece of clothing from the latest victim and blaming the Jews.

It is obvious that the murderer deliberately exploited local anti-Semitic prejudice by pointing the finger of suspicion at the Jews - something which Sir Robert Anderson himself disgracefully repeated many years later.

People who dismiss my observations as supposition and rely on the argument that the circumstances which I cite are merely coincidences are not, in my submission, following the trail of the evidence.

A real example of mere coincidence is that cited by Inspector Abberline - that of Druitt committing suicide a few weeks after the murders ended.

The Whitechapel Murderer knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and whom he was blaming.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If, as observed by a coroner, the ultimate aim of the murderer was to obtain internal organs from his victims, then that explains why he committed more than one murder.

He failed to obtain one the first time because he was disturbed, and that is why he then committed a murder in Hanbury Street.

He failed again in Berner Street for the same reason, and that is why he committed a second murder that night in Mitre Square.

In the cases of the three murders where there is no evidence that he was disturbed before he could excise any organs, organs were missing.

It’s possible to follow evidence and still arrive at an incorrect conclusion of course. It’s an error though to assume that our own interpretation must be the correct one which is what you’re doing here. There’s nothing wrong with your initial suggestion about the fact of organs being taken on the occasions where there was no possible interruption (I’ve used it myself in discussions with Trevor on his theory that the organs were taken at the morgue)


There is evidence that the murderer was following press coverage and local public reaction to the murders.

I don’t know what that evidence is? Could you be more specific?


He must have known of the march down Hanbury Street during which marchers chanted 'Down with the Jews!' and alleged that the murderer was a Jew.

He may also have read or heard of the newspaper report that writing had been found on the wall next to the victim in Hanbury Street.

The very next night that a murder was committed, writing was actually found practically pointing at a bloody piece of clothing from the latest victim and blaming the Jews.

It is obvious that the murderer deliberately exploited local anti-Semitic prejudice by pointing the finger of suspicion at the Jews - something which Sir Robert Anderson himself disgracefully repeated many years later.

It’s possible but it’s not ‘obvious’ as this is just your own interpretation. It’s just a fact that we don’t know if the killer wrote the graffito or not. I think that he could have written it but I’m nothing approaching certain as other explanations and issues exist. For example:

It could have been recently written by someone who held a grudge against either Jews in general or a particular Jew. (It’s been suggested before but perhaps the writer felt that he’d been cheated in some way by a Jew.)

It could have been written by a Jewish killer seeking to point the finger toward gentiles (therefore away from himself)

We have to ask why no message at Hanbury Street or Miller’s Court if the killer was determined to blame Jews?


People who dismiss my observations as supposition and rely on the argument that the circumstances which I cite are merely coincidences are not, in my submission, following the trail of the evidence.

A real example of mere coincidence is that cited by Inspector Abberline - that of Druitt committing suicide a few weeks after the murders ended.

Nothing wrong with opinions but again you are stating this as if it’s proven. If you think that it’s been proven perhaps you could provide us with some evidence that it’s not just your own opinion?


The Whitechapel Murderer knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and whom he was blaming.

Perhaps it’s a typo but you forgot to put ‘in my own opinion’ at the beginning of that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps it’s a typo but you forgot to put ‘in my own opinion’ at the beginning of that.

There is a very long literary tradition of expressing opinion as statement.

Plenty of well-know writers on this subject have done the same, without their supposed error being pointed out by any of those who point to my alleged error.

You are under no obligation to like my style of writing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And that’s fine if you accept that it was your opinion and the possibility of it being wrong of course.