Coincidence?

[packers stem]

Is it widely accepted that the ripper and the Torso Man where one and the same?

Never said that they were

[Herlock Sholmes]

None we know about, but there are plenty of examples of murders by States.

Accepted Eten. For me it’s just far more difficult to see one involving East End prostitutes.

[Losmandris]

And here we agree. Why would anyone, the state or another group of individuals, draw attention to the murders and victims by making them so sensational? Certainly the Royal Conspiracy theory falls down here (and of course in other places). But there are possible reasons that the murders were sensationalised to draw publicity, none of which I particularly subscribe to but could possibly be true. A couple of examples below:
* to draw attention away from something else (no idea what, but possible)
* to embarrass the government (though seems a bit extreme so not putting much faith in this one)
* to draw attention to the poor conditions in Whitechapel (someone else's suggestion I read somewhere)
* to demonise jewish immigrants (which it did for a while).



To take your second point though, it is because the people carrying them out botched it that we know about them. If they had been more proficient we would not know about them, they would simply be unsolved murders and/or accidental deaths. How many do we not know about? The body in the suitcase is a good example of where the murderer wanted to draw attention to the murder - why is a matter of speculation, but it did embarrass the UK government and security forces.

I am still not convinced the murders were anything other than a serial killer acting on whatever impulses drove him, but there are plenty of examples of cover ups

Some good points here! Thanks. Where in the world would the government or whoever find someone like JtR? Those kind of actions go above and beyond!

Tristan

[etenguy]

No. Because there aren’t any.

None we know about, but there are plenty of examples of murders by States.

[etenguy]

Surely if the state was involved they would have found a way to bump these people off in a quieter fashion?

And here we agree. Why would anyone, the state or another group of individuals, draw attention to the murders and victims by making them so sensational? Certainly the Royal Conspiracy theory falls down here (and of course in other places). But there are possible reasons that the murders were sensationalised to draw publicity, none of which I particularly subscribe to but could possibly be true. A couple of examples below:
* to draw attention away from something else (no idea what, but possible)
* to embarrass the government (though seems a bit extreme so not putting much faith in this one)
* to draw attention to the poor conditions in Whitechapel (someone else's suggestion I read somewhere)
* to demonise jewish immigrants (which it did for a while).

Both the cases you cite were meant to be done on the quiet, without raising any suspicion, the reason they did, was the fact that the people carrying them out were not all that good at it!
Tristan

To take your second point though, it is because the people carrying them out botched it that we know about them. If they had been more proficient we would not know about them, they would simply be unsolved murders and/or accidental deaths. How many do we not know about? The body in the suitcase is a good example of where the murderer wanted to draw attention to the murder - why is a matter of speculation, but it did embarrass the UK government and security forces.

I am still not convinced the murders were anything other than a serial killer acting on whatever impulses drove him, but there are plenty of examples of cover ups

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you think of any other serial killer case that has any kind of conspiracy theory linked to it? Or one that involved some kind of cover up? I can't think of any?

No. Because there aren’t any.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killer

Is it widely accepted that the ripper and the Torso Man where one and the same?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’re looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there is no evidence.

Apart from 5 dirt-poor woman/prostitutes being horribly murdered by having their throats cut followed by horrendous mutilations over a two month period and within a very small area. I can’t think why the police didn’t think conspiracy straight away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I believe happened is that she was taken to a 'meeting' at an empty house in that corner of the square, killed and carried outside.

Something very similar for Chapman also

You're looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there's no evidence .
Once you realise the links with the timings of the Whitehall torso discoveries coincide with Chapman and Eddowes you change your thinking.
unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killer

There isn’t a smidgeon evidence for this fantasy of course. Catherine was in a police station for drunkenness. No one knew when she would have been released. She walked toward Mitre Square, bumped into her killer, and was murdered in the square. It’s very simple. Annie Chapman was killed in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at around 5.25-5.30. Even Phillips stated that she was definitely killed where she was found. The police concurred.

You are simply creating a scenario which you believe fits the facts. It’s a work of imagination, and whilst imagination is important, it shouldn’t override common-sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ask Simon, he would know, thats what he said about knights work . suggest you take it up with him.

But the difference is that Simon read Knight’s work before he criticised it. You’ve chosen to disparage Simon’s bookand research without actually reading it.

Show me such evidence and prove that knight left it out of his book on purpose.

To adopt your approach Fishy - I have posted this stuff many times and you’ve ignored it. Of the top of my head I’ll mention the fact that Knight said that Cook and Crook were one and the same but by checking the rate books Simon found that Cook continued living in Cleveland Street long after Annie Crook was supposed to have been operated on by Gull. Those rate books were available to Knight. Also we know that the hospital didn’t exist at the address that Knight claimed. This information was available to Knight.

And this is the problem right here , 99 .9 % of people who use this to discredit knights work have know idea why he said that. ive explained it to you herlock , but i no longer have the time or energy to keep doing it with newbies im afraid. let them work it out themselves .

But your explanation is not a solution. Like Mike Barrett, Joseph disclaimed the story then (when another book was in the offing) he claimed that it was true but different. So the question is: how can we know when Joseph was being truthful?

Fishy, it’s obvious that we are never going to agree on this. The main thing that I cannot understand is why you are so passionate to defend the Knight/Sickert story? So passionate that you are willing to turn a blind eye to facts that would scupper any other theory. If someone proposed a theory like the following would you or anyone defend it?:

A story where a person’s religion is central to the story but the writer got her religion wrong. Where the writer had her living in a building that didn’t exist at the time. He states that this woman and another were one and the same but the evidence clearly shows that they weren’t. He has an artist living at a studio that didn’t exist at the time and he has the woman taken to a hospital that didn’t exist at the time. He then describes an accident as being connected but the evidence shows that it wasn’t. Not only this but he has the Queens Physician involved, who was a 71 year old recovering stroke victim, mutilating East End prostitutes in a carriage with two other men carrying the corpse around to dump it in some public place. And part of the evidence used to support this is an obviously forged Abberline diary.

Can you be surprised when someone says - hold on, this sounds slightly unbelievable.

[Losmandris]

What I believe happened is that she was taken to a 'meeting' at an empty house in that corner of the square, killed and carried outside.

Something very similar for Chapman also

You're looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there's no evidence .
Once you realise the links with the timings of the Whitehall torso discoveries coincide with Chapman and Eddowes you change your thinking.
unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killer

Interesting. Thanks. Any thoughts on who it could have been or motive?

Tristan

[Losmandris]

If the cover ups / conspiracy worked, we would not know about them. However, there are countless cases of individuals being killed by a State and sometimes more than one, though not a serial killer in the way we think about JtR. I'm not sure I can remember the names, but there have been a couple of Russians killed (or attempted murder) in the UK - the last I know about is the poison perfume in Salisbury attempt. Another famous one was the guy who was poisoned with an umbrella tip crossing a bridge in London and of course the polonium poisoning case. There was also the spy found in a suitcase. I'm sure we could find more. But I cannot think of a serial killer version of State killings, but perhaps they were good at covering them up.

You're right about the gaps in our knowledge and that we might fill these with our own stories. This may of course lead to compelling but inaccurate versions of what occurred. While I do not have a conspiracy theory of my own, there are indicators / coincidences which suggest, to me at least, that some kind of cover up may have occurred. I still on balance believe it was a serial killer acting under their own demons, but I still have room for a different explanation.

Surely if the state was involved they would have found a way to bump these people off in a quieter fashion? Both the cases you cite were meant to be done on the quiet, without raising any suspicion, the reason they did, was the fact that the people carrying them out were not all that good at it!

Tristan

[etenguy]

Can you think of any other serial killer case that has any kind of conspiracy theory linked to it? Or one that involved some kind of cover up? I can't think of any? The fact is that in this case so many things are missing, most notably the identity of the killer, so we try and fill in the gaps, which give rise to these wild theories. If we had more evidence, clear photographs or things that could be tested, these gaps would be diminished and the opportunity for different theories to develop would be limited.

Tristan

If the cover ups / conspiracy worked, we would not know about them. However, there are countless cases of individuals being killed by a State and sometimes more than one, though not a serial killer in the way we think about JtR. I'm not sure I can remember the names, but there have been a couple of Russians killed (or attempted murder) in the UK - the last I know about is the poison perfume in Salisbury attempt. Another famous one was the guy who was poisoned with an umbrella tip crossing a bridge in London and of course the polonium poisoning case. There was also the spy found in a suitcase. I'm sure we could find more. But I cannot think of a serial killer version of State killings, but perhaps they were good at covering them up.

You're right about the gaps in our knowledge and that we might fill these with our own stories. This may of course lead to compelling but inaccurate versions of what occurred. While I do not have a conspiracy theory of my own, there are indicators / coincidences which suggest, to me at least, that some kind of cover up may have occurred. I still on balance believe it was a serial killer acting under their own demons, but I still have room for a different explanation.

[packers stem]

Can you set out roughly in a few sentences what you believe happened? I am rather intrigued!

Tristan

What I believe happened is that she was taken to a 'meeting' at an empty house in that corner of the square, killed and carried outside.

Something very similar for Chapman also

You're looking for a serial killer in the modern sense for which there's no evidence .
Once you realise the links with the timings of the Whitehall torso discoveries coincide with Chapman and Eddowes you change your thinking.
unless you believe the torso killer was another on the spot serial killer

[Losmandris]

I think we can be reasonably confident the murders and mutilations occurred where the bodies were found. The evidence supports that theory both in terms of interruptions (Stride), sightings (Chapman, Eddowes) and discovery so close to TOD (Nichols). Kelly's murder was inside and speaks for itself.

It does not follow, though, that this was necessarily a lone killer nor that there was no possible cover up / conspiracy involved. It is true that no entirely convincing evidence-based conspiracy has been articulated that satisfies the majority of those interested in the case, but that does not mean one did not exist. Any such theory would need to explain why such sensational murders were involved, and that is an extremely difficult hurdle to jump. The royal conspiracy falls down here completely in my view. You do not keep something quiet by shouting about it. But there may be a reason that just isn't clear, yet.

Can you think of any other serial killer case that has any kind of conspiracy theory linked to it? Or one that involved some kind of cover up? I can't think of any? The fact is that in this case so many things are missing, most notably the identity of the killer, so we try and fill in the gaps, which give rise to these wild theories. If we had more evidence, clear photographs or things that could be tested, these gaps would be diminished and the opportunity for different theories to develop would be limited.

Tristan