Faecal matter on apron piece

[Trevor Marriott]

"(1) Diplodocus did not chew. It used its needle-like teeth to clip soft foliage from trees, then swallowed the foliage whole. This is why diplodocus needed such an enormous stomach (and a body to surround it), because unchewed food needed to digest there. "

Thanks Damaso,

Most interesting.

Monty

Sounds more like you than me

[lynn cates]

yet again

Hello Tom. Thanks. Funny you should mention Porter. I am ready for another go at him. Wish he'd publish an updated edition.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

overt signs

Hello Damaso. Thanks. Although one cannot rule out strangulation, the overt signs were not there as in Polly and Annie, nor yet the bruises.

I am open to ideas here. If you have some , I'd love to hear.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

"(1) Diplodocus did not chew. It used its needle-like teeth to clip soft foliage from trees, then swallowed the foliage whole. This is why diplodocus needed such an enormous stomach (and a body to surround it), because unchewed food needed to digest there. "

Thanks Damaso,

Most interesting.

Monty

[Monty]

Tom,

October 4th letter to be precise.

It seems former Lord Mayor of London, John Whittaker Ellis raised the issue with Matthews the day previous and Warren wrote in response to that.

Monty


PS Complete History P290

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hunter, our posts crossed, but yes, it seems like we're thinking of the same thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom. Sounds like a quote from Porter's book. See if I can find it.

Hi Lynn. That's possible, but for some reason I'm thinking it's in 'Ultimate'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. By the way, I have Bernard Porter's book, although I'm waiting to read it in full when my research comes back around to that.

[Hunter]

Hi Simon, a very interesting quote you've found. This brings to mind another comment made either by Anderson or Warren in 1888 or 1889, regarding pushing the boundaries of the law, I believe in their door to door searches. Do you recall the comment I'm thinking of?

It was Warren in a letter to Home Secretary Matthews, and he points out the repercussions of doing such an illegal act.

[Damaso Marte]

(1) Diplodocus did not chew. It used its needle-like teeth to clip soft foliage from trees, then swallowed the foliage whole. This is why diplodocus needed such an enormous stomach (and a body to surround it), because unchewed food needed to digest there.

(2) A pedant could possibly turn Lynn's game against him and point out differences between Nichols and Chapman. Nichols had multiple cuts to the abdomen, for example (as did Eddowes, no?). And of course Chapman had organs removed, which Nichols did not. If these are the work of the same killer, we have somebody willing to do things to victim n+1 that he did not do to victim n.

(3) Lynn, how do you believe that Eddowes was subdued? She had her throat cut while laying on the ground, same as C1 and C2. (Or at least, if you are ruling out strangulation, what forms do you see as plausible?)

[lynn cates]

Porter

Hello Tom. Sounds like a quote from Porter's book. See if I can find it.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Sorry, I don't.

I'll have a trawl through my files.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

"I wish to state emphatically that in recent years the Police have succeeded only by straining the law, or, in plain English, by doing utterly unlawful things . . .’" Metropolitan Police Memorandum initialled by Dr. Robert Anderson, 13th December 1898: HO45/10254/X36450, sub. 77.

Hi Simon, a very interesting quote you've found. This brings to mind another comment made either by Anderson or Warren in 1888 or 1889, regarding pushing the boundaries of the law, I believe in their door to door searches. Do you recall the comment I'm thinking of?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Thank you.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Now that Simon, it a contribution.

Trevor will do well to follow your lead.


Your explanation is clear to me. Thanks.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

At the moment I do not know if "Jack" was a conspiracy [a group of people entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective]—or a plot [any carefully planned secret scheme, usually by a small number of persons, to secure sinister ends]—or an intrigue [duplicity and deceit for criminal or treasonous objectives]—or an illegal ploy [a subterfuge or gambit as part of an overall strategy] perhaps designed for the greater public good.

But I am more than willing to continue exploring such possibilities.

"I wish to state emphatically that in recent years the Police have succeeded only by straining the law, or, in plain English, by doing utterly unlawful things . . .’" Metropolitan Police Memorandum initialled by Dr. Robert Anderson, 13th December 1898: HO45/10254/X36450, sub. 77.

So what's to lose? Everything else has failed miserably.

Regards,

Simon