cop the ripper? (a revived thread)

[DirectorDave]

If Jack was a policeman the Lusk letter mkes sence......

It was sent to Lusk because the Killer felt that Lusk and the vigilance commitee were challenging the authority of the police.

[DVV]

You will find the material in the new book contains corroboration to the new arguments. This is sadly lacking in respect of some of the old arguments

Hi Trevor,

ok....
But - once again - if your arguments are so wonderful, why don't you post them here ?

Must I pay for each of your thoughts ?

Or is there only one thought in your new book?

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Don't fall in love, Dean.

Amitiés,
David

[Hamrammr]

I too like to crouch in Goulston Street and eat hotdogs.


It is a compulsion though. Just like the compulsion to lick the sugar from your lips while eating a donut. It's an irritation. That piece of cloth just served as a rag to clean his hands.

[DVV]

You should see the mess I make eating hotdogs.

Hi Dean,

I too like to crouch in Goulston Street and eat hotdogs.

Amitiés,
David

[Hamrammr]

I have started reading Trevor's book and right or wrong I think someone had to go down that path and Trevor should be thanked for doing so. I would also be interested in reading his second book. However, I have to agree that surely a mid-forties prostitute back then would not be biologically and anatomically identical to one living today. Also, to say that it is possible for women in their late 40s to menstruate sounds a little bit of a stretch. There is certainly nothing convincing in that testament.

Far more convincing is that Jack had to wipe his messy hands on something when he finished. It's a natrual compulsion. You should see the mess I make eating hotdogs. And since Eddowes' bowels were ruptured in the attack, it is not unlikely that he got urine and excrement on his hands while he worked, as well as the red stuff.


Hey ho, on we go.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sox!

Well, an interesting piece of info. Thanks!

But... if JtR was a cop gone wrong, he did his deeds probably off-duty!

All the best
Jukka

[Sox]

Well if your only point of argument is that. There is no point in continuing becasue we dont know for sure so you cannot rule out the possibilty that she was or could have been. Dont be so negative try and consider other options to the ones which have been accepted as being correct.

Actually Trevor, it is a very valid point. It is quite correct to say that the medical condition of the average working class woman in 1888, was quite different to one in 2010.

It is also a huge leap of faith to describe Kate Eddowes as an 'un-hygenic prostitute' when you quite cleary have no idea, at all, about her with regard to her cleanliness.

Its no more of a wild theory than the killer cuting it off to take away the organs in or to wipe his hands.

Yes it is, that he used it to carry organs or to wipe his hands/knife is not 'wild theory' but a reasonable assumption based on the fact that organs were removed form the body or that the killers hands/knife would have been bloody.'Wild theory' is that Kate was on her period or, even wilder, someone who was not the killer cut it and planted it.

On the subject of the OP, I remember reading a Victorian study some years ago that claimed that, apart from local men, the most common client of these women were night duty policemen.

[Trevor Marriott]

His purpose can be obscure and/or hotly debated, but that's not the point. It's a mere fact : he cut it (in Mitre Square) and threw it (in Goulston Street).

Quote:
Then come back to me and see if you still feel the same way

As I said, I'll read it, God willing.
And I'll pay for it even if you are kind enough to post your new arguments here.

Amitiés,
David

You will find the material in the new book contains corroboration to the new arguments. This is sadly lacking in respect of some of the old arguments

[DVV]

For what purpose did he cut it and throw it away. All the reasons previoulsy given are now looked upon as suspect.

His purpose can be obscure and/or hotly debated, but that's not the point. It's a mere fact : he cut it (in Mitre Square) and threw it (in Goulston Street).

Quote:
Then come back to me and see if you still feel the same way

As I said, I'll read it, God willing.
And I'll pay for it even if you are kind enough to post your new arguments here.

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=DVV;119291]What I firmly believe is that he cut the piece of apron in Mitre Square and threw it in Goulston Street.
As convincing as you may find your scenario, still nobody seems convinced.

For what purpose did he cut it and throw it away. All the reasons previoulsy given are now looked upon as suspect.

I'll buy and read it as soon as possible, and with pleasure, Trevor.

Then come back to me and see if you still feel the same way
Amitiés

[DVV]

As far as the apron piece is concerned. he could not have taken the organs away in it. Nor could he have taken it away to wipe his hands or knife on it. So if you still beleive those facts are correct show me something that will corroborate those beliefs.

What I firmly believe is that he cut the piece of apron in Mitre Square and threw it in Goulston Street.
As convincing as you may find your scenario, still nobody seems convinced.

I would also suggest to bring things up to date you get hold of a copy of my second book "The Evil Within" which has an extended chapter on JTR and includes new material and photographs covering these aforementioned issues.

I'll buy and read it as soon as possible, and with pleasure, Trevor.

Amitiés,
David

[protohistorian]

Mr. Marriot, it is not a matter of negativity. Failing to account for processes we know effect the human body, is not my mistake and I flatly refuse to open my mind to something that is contrary to established scientific fact. What you are proposing, in my mind is tantamount to accepting the proposition that fire is cold. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed I can if your gynecologist did not account for poor diet in the denizens of the east end, and further, without knowing the age of menarche to say with any certainty is impossible. As I i have stated earlier the current average for menopause among women in western culture is in fact 51. This is certainly a fact of the greatly improved diet now enjoyed in Western culture. If one examines cultures more like the one in question, the age for menopause drops to the mid 30's. Not all women are equal, and not all societies are equal. Dave

Well if your only point of argument is that. There is no point in continuing becasue we dont know for sure so you cannot rule out the possibilty that she was or could have been. Dont be so negative try and consider other options to the ones which have been accepted as being correct.

[protohistorian]

.

Well i have it in part of a consutant gynecolgists statement that women up to their late 40`s are still capable of mentsruation. So you cannot say Edowes was past that st age or incapable of menstruating through poor health.

Some of you people will try every means possible whereby you try to negate new issues.

Indeed I can if your gynecologist did not account for poor diet in the denizens of the east end, and further, without knowing the age of menarche to say with any certainty is impossible. As I i have stated earlier the current average for menopause among women in western culture is in fact 51. This is certainly a fact of the greatly improved diet now enjoyed in Western culture. If one examines cultures more like the one in question, the age for menopause drops to the mid 30's. Not all women are equal, and not all societies are equal. Dave