Have Ripperologists Been Polled As To Who They Think Jack Really Was?

[robhouse]

Hello Rob, Steven.

"For those who seem to want to believe that Jack the Ripper never existed... i.e that all or some of the C5 were not killed by one lone serial killer, I would suggest providing some evidence to support the theory."

Actually, this theory is a denial of the C5 theory. And since it is a DENIAL, argumentatively, according to rule, the onus is on the assertor of the POSITIVE theory. Those who deny a theory need observe no such strictures.

Cheers.
LC

The argument FOR the C5 has already been well-argued, and is entirely within the bounds of logical deduction based on the factors I mentioned, among others. As I said, I myself posted a quite extensive comparison of the wounds in the C5, and the similarities are striking, very much so. Anyone who wishes to claim one o the C5 was not a Ripper victim will have to address this issue first, then look at the others too. So there is not a lack of evidence to support the theory. The "there is no Jack the Ripper" camp has not, to my knowledge, given any supporting evidence that undermines the traditional view. Anyone who thinks Kelly and Eddowes were done by different killers should really re-examine the autopsy reports. And in my opinion, the rest of the C5 are likewise consistent with the wound characteristics in these murders, assuming certain variables... fear of interruption, actual interruption, escalation of mutilation, etc.

RH

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello Maria.

"perhaps we should agree to disagree about this."

Just as you wish.

"but a copycat has never happened on the exact same night as the original crime"

Agreed. But Eddowes happened about 3 weeks after Chapman--or am I mixing dates?

"nor does a copycat generally escalate from the original crime."

What escalation? The facial mutilations were predicted as part of the set up.

"Anyone acquainted with forensic psychology would immediately see that the Whitechapel murders are an expected progression of the same perp's “needs“ and MO."

Sorry, don't watch CSI. Like Camelot, it is a silly place.

"Brother Cafdael (as far as I know) is a fictional character."

Indeed. So is "JTR."

"Or did you mean this as a pun?"

No, I merely called attention to the underlying premise of the episode.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

You are entitled to your view as well.
Obstructing an investigation is not being a murderer.

Like I politely and respectfully said- we all fall down along the way. All ideas have problems attached one way or tother. We will simply never agree.

I see things in a different way. We all do in the minutae. A questiö for you Maria. Counting McKENZIE, Coles, and the 12 Simon mentioned- just how many different killers were there in your opinion?

I tell you what it tells me. Too manx by far.

Best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Lynn,
perhaps we should agree to disagree about this, but a copycat has never happened on the exact same night as the original crime, nor does a copycat generally escalate from the original crime. Anyone acquainted with forensic psychology would immediately see that the Whitechapel murders are an expected progression of the same perp's “needs“ and MO.
Brother Cafdael (as far as I know) is a fictional character. Or did you mean this as a pun?

At least we are totally in agreement pertaining to Rachkovsky, Lynn.

[lynn cates]

Cadfael

Hello Maria. Why would a copycat kill more than once? His raison d'etre is not to create a series of crimes but something very practical--to evade justice.

Must I sentence you buy a DVD copy of "Brother Cadfael: One Corpse too Many"?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Phil,
I COMPLETELY agree with Rob House when he's saying that the evidence supporting the theory of one lone killer is overwhelming, based on similarities between the crimes, including victimology, time of attack, MO, location, and most importantly, a comparison of the crime scenes, escape routes, specific wounds, and body positioning. The time-frame is too short for a copycat of this new, particular type of killer (serial killer/post-mortem mutilator) to have materialized and NEVER to have hit again after 1891. And I would throw in Tabram “to boot“ too.
As for Le Grand, there's evidence that he might have engaged also in obstructing the Mitre Square investigation. I'm working on this (still needs lots of research).

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

For the record, I have opined (for the C5) a 2-1-2 (3 killers) or perhaps a 2-1-1-1. Which means that if one takes the 3 killer scenario, could, with statistical adjustment, agree with Monty and SPE. I.E. That two of the C5 were individual killings (example Stride and Kelly) and the other 3 by the same hand.
The only difference being that I personajly have doubts that the person who killed Eddowes being the same person as who killed Kelly. The inference has been that The Kelly murder MAY have Irish connections. (note..this has been thought of long before We were around)
Given that-IF Kelly and Eddowes were killed by the same hand- and there was some sort of Irish connection-I would want to find a common link between the two women themselves.

I would like to ask Monty a direct question. Which two of the C5 are NOT, in his opinion- if his "at least 3 by the same hand- would he separate form the rest? I presume Stride and Kelly? If so- what reasons does he have for these two being of a different hand?

Reductionist eh Tom? Better than a multiplicicist. Where is the evidence that one and the SAME person was at all 5 murder sites according to witness testimony of descriptions of men seen? There is NO evidence of the same man purportedly seen at both the Chapman site and the Eddowes or even Kelly site- or vicinity.
Your favourite suspects connection, Le Grande, has only, as far as we know, a connection to Strides location.

Rob, your favourite suspect cannot be matched with physical observations by witnesses at all 5 sites either, plus he, like others, has no known knowledge of the insides of the anatomy of a human being- plus the police were still looking for JTR after he was incarcerated.

Likewise Druitt for many of the above points.

We are all entitled to have our opinion, and as things stand atm we all fall down on evidence..in one way or the other.

Simon stated earlier that 12 women the 12 months stated died by knife attacks by unknown hand. He makes a good point. What were the police doing wrong? 12 unsolved murders?

So how many of THOSE killerd were of the same hand? If 3 or more- is THIS a "Jack the Ripper" too?

All respect and zero animosity toward all of the persons above. The efforts of Rob and Tom to catch JTR with their suspects is duly acknowledged.

And incase anyone thinks that I have just jumped on the bandwagon re 2-1-2 or 2-1-1-1, I have thought the former since about 1976 or so, the latter since around 2000. i am far from certain of either- but am certain it wasnt a C5- for the reasons above and much more besides.

I am not out to change people's minds. They are entitled to their opinion, as am I.

Merry Xmas to one and all. Let us all hope for 2012 that new evidence emerges.

Best wishes, Phil

[Monty]

Your comfort was never a concern of mine Tom,

It wasn't timing, it was the fact Stewart obtained a letter from a major mover in Special Branch who would have had knowledge of the case.

Whatever you think of Tumblety, Stewart and Paul presented their views and supported with evidence.

They provided something. Which is more than others have done.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm no more comfortable with Monty's reductionist views of the case (three victims) than Monty is with Trevor/Lynn/Phil's reductionist views (no more than 2 kills by the same man).

Let's imagine that Evans had never published his book, we didn't know who he was, and he showed up on Casebook going 'Hey, I've got a great theory. i think Jack the Ripper was a 6'4" flamboyant gay man who only killed Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. Stride and Kelly were domestic homicides!' How long, I wonder, before he'd be chased away? But timing is everything, and he published and became a bestseller before the internet Ripper community existed. Not picking on Stewart at all here, just adding a little perspective.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

3 out of 5 ain't bad

Hello Neil. Thanks for that.

Yes, I am aware of your qualification. Actually, your position approximates that of Mr. Evans who has publicly declared that, based only on the signatures, he could feel confident of just 3.

My mission, then, is to separate Annie and Kate in your thinking.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Oh I don't know Lynn,

You seem to do ok.

No, I stated at least 3, not only 3.....and have done so for these past 12 years so you shouldn't be surprised.

Monty

[lynn cates]

another convert

Hello Neil. Regretfully, not capable of a smart reply.

I am astonished, however, that you claim only 3. That is a major concession.

Welcome to the club; all fees waived.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

QUOTE=robhouse;200880]For those who seem to want to believe that Jack the Ripper never existed... i.e that all or some of the C5 were not killed by one lone serial killer, I would suggest providing some evidence to support the theory. To me, the evidence supporting the theory of one lone killer is overwhelming, and is based largely on similarities between the crimes, including victimology, time of attack, method of approach, m.o., location of attacks, and most important, a comparison of the specific wounds, crime scenes, and body positioning. I have posted a pretty extensive comparison of these in the past. It is inconceivable, in my opinion, that Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were not murdered by the same person. Nichols likewise is almost certain, as is Stride based on the theory that the killer was interrupted and frightened away before doing any mutilation of the corpse. Also, given the nature of the crimes, a particular type of killer is clearly suggested (post-mortem mutilator), and this also in my opinion lessens the likelihood of two killers acting together. I realize this all seems very boring for the revisionists out there, but there is absolutely zero evidence that suggests that any of the C5 were killed by someone other than Jack the Ripper. And I would throw in Tabram to boot. The fact that people on these boards keep repeating (and agreeing with other people) the suggestion that the 5 were killed by different killers, does not make it a more plausible theory.

RH[/QUOTE]

Steady Rob,

You run the gauntlet of being labelled a Luddite in a flat world.

However, you are perfectly correct.


Lynn,

The evidence is there for all to see, MO, signature, location, victimology, percentage....all support a lone murderer for at least 3 of these killings.

If you propose a theory on there being multiple killers then to be taken seriously you need to provide evidence. This has not happened. All we have had is cute comments about the dark ages and insinuations of an inability to think differently.

Just mere diversions from the fact the evidence is either non existant or flimsy at best.

So whilst you and others think of a smart reply (which I do enjoy I must confess) Rob, Steve and the majority, including myself, will wait with baited breath.

Monty

[lynn cates]

nego

Hello Rob, Steven.

"For those who seem to want to believe that Jack the Ripper never existed... i.e that all or some of the C5 were not killed by one lone serial killer, I would suggest providing some evidence to support the theory."

Actually, this theory is a denial of the C5 theory. And since it is a DENIAL, argumentatively, according to rule, the onus is on the assertor of the POSITIVE theory. Those who deny a theory need observe no such strictures.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Beetmore conclusion

Hello Tom. Finis.

Cheers.
LC