Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[John Wheat]

Jack could be someone we've never heard of or someone we have heard of but has been dismissed as a suspect. Also I don't see any evidence to link the Thames Torso murders to Jack the Ripper.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I am perfectly happy with my understanding of the cases and situation. I have no suspect to push and no theory to try and twist the facts to fit. All I said is that the fact that Hebbert and Bond linked these four cases to each other should not be dismissed lightly. Bond and Hebbert examined all four sets of remains and were in the unique position of being able to make wound and weapon comparisons between the four.

You gave your own opinion earlier the four torsos were linked by abortion, that is untrue as the doctors clearly demonstrated with two cases. Are you disputing that conclusion of theirs as well?

I never aaid they were linked specifically by abortion I said they could have been linked to some illegal medical operation which went fatally wrong

You have also mentioned the anatomy act in connection but have failed to give any believable account of how or why this would happen just in these four cases 87-89 and just in London with females aged 25 - 40.

I answered this previoulsy by suggesting that all of these females between the years you stated could have died whilst being operated on by some back street unlicensced physician. Thereafter that person or persons could have stopped or been stopped that would explain why there were no more body parts discovered after those dates.

In fact, it looks like you will go to any lengths to link them by any other means except than possibly a serial killer.

I am not disputing the fact that these could have been the victim of a serial killer but as it stands there is no evidence to show how they died. So their deaths must remain suspicious thats a long way from going on record suggesting they were murdered and a long way from linking them to The Whitechapel murderer and a long was from creating another serial killer.

And casebook does not link the Elizabeth Jackson murder to the Whitechapel murders. It explains in the description of the case that the New York World newspaper linked her case to the WM and that there is no evidence to show this is true, so I don't know what bit you are reading to say casebook links them.
The only people to link the WM and the four torso cases have been modern authors with a suspect.

Well her name and the Pinchin St Torso are shown under the section on here as other possible Ripper victims.

And that's my very last post. See ya.

And this is my very last post to

[RivkahChaya]

Jack could be someone we've never heard of or someone we have heard of but has been dismissed as a suspect. Also I don't see any evidence to link the Thames Torso murders to Jack the Ripper.

Let me ask a couple of other questions: how certain is it that the Pinchin St. torso is part of the Thames torso murders; and, is it possible that Elizabeth Jackson was not killed by the same person who killed the other Thames victims?

I ask the second question not because I want to revisit the abortionist hash-- I completely agree that it is ridiculous-- I ask just because it seems outside the usual range of victims to kill a very obviously pregnant woman. I know that serial killers do surprising things, and both MOs and signatures are not set in concrete. I also know that it was easier for a man to walk away from responsibility, so we would probably be out of line postulating a "Scott Peterson" sort of scenario, when we know nothing else about the crime other than that a pregnant woman was murdered.

But was there real evidence that Jackson was killed by the same person, or was she just lumped in on the assumption that there couldn't be two killers like that, and the police didn't know much about the phenomenon of copycats? either psychopathic ones, or people who take advantage of murders in the news to bump off a relative of business rival in the style of a current serial killer.

Those aren't rhetorical questions I can recite the JTR A to Z front to back, or back to front, however you like, but I know very little about crime in late Victorian England in general, which I suppose is a real weakness of mine. It's probably because I'm an American. We get British history in schools only as it affects literature, so for most Americans, Victorian history ends with the death of Charles Dickens. If you study literature in college, you get Hardy, but that's not London.

[RivkahChaya]

Hey! I'm a constable now! when did that happen? where do I pick up my hat?

[Wickerman]

Let me ask a couple of other questions: how certain is it that the Pinchin St. torso is part of the Thames torso murders;

The designation "Thames Torso Murders" is a means of identifying a group of similar crimes, not necessarily by the same person.
The Pinchin St. torso is certainly among the torso murders, because its a torso, and unlikely to be suicide.
Though some will argue that there's no proof it was murder.

and, is it possible that Elizabeth Jackson was not killed by the same person who killed the other Thames victims?

Yes, of course.

But was there real evidence that Jackson was killed by the same person, or was she just lumped in on the assumption that there couldn't be two killers like that, and the police didn't know much about the phenomenon of copycats?

Similar crimes are often assumed to have a similar cause. But, its only a starting point for the investigation. I don't think its a case of requiring experience with copycats, thats only common sense.

The police will hold back certain information in order to avoid inspiring some copycat. Against this we have the press who want to report everything. Therefore we end up with the press claiming the police tell them nothing, while the police accuse the press of making it up.
Its "yes" in both cases. Our problem is, "to what degree?"

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

The designation "Thames Torso Murders" is a means of identifying a group of similar crimes, not necessarily by the same person.

The Pinchin St. torso is certainly among the torso murders, because its a torso, and unlikely to be suicide.

OK, let me phrase it another way: is the Pinchin St. torso included for any reason other than that it is a torso, and it different in any way from the Thames bodies, in that they all share X characteristic, and Pinchin St. doesn't, other than being washed up from the Thames. And is the Pinchin St. victim separated in time from the others, the way that, say, any post-MJK, Whitechapel, Ripper-like victims (Coles et al.) are separated from the canonical 5 in time?

Also, am I right that all the bodies from the Thames showed definite tool marks, and were not dismembered because someone attached weights to the legs and head, which came off with decomposition and bloating? (I really have no idea what abdominal cutting would do to the bloating that brings a body to the surface.)

[Bridewell]

The Verdict & The Balance Of Probabilities

The balance of probabilities is not relevant to this case. You cant simply say "well we dont know how she died, but lets take a guess she was murdered"

Clearly it is relevant if the inquest verdict was murder. Was that verdict reached on the basis of certainty? No? Then it can only have been reached on the balance of probabilities. The suggestion that such a verdict should not have been reached does not negate the fact that, seemingly, that is the basis upon which, rightly or wrongly, it was reached.

Regards, Bridewell.

[RivkahChaya]

It seems think the inquest thinking went something like "Someone tried to dispose of this body in secret. Why would someone do that, except to hide a murder?"

Even if she was killed during a botched operation of some sort, be it abortion, or something else, I'm pretty sure that if the person doing the operating was not a licensed (or whatever the standard was then) physician, it is murder. But I am still guessing that there are ample ways to come up with an excuse for a seven-month-pregnant woman dying, not by someone's hand, since we know it wasn't an abortion, at least of the coathanger type.

However, when you cut up the body and dump it, you have ruined any chance you have of passing it off as an accident.

So, there you go. It was murder, whatever the motive. It may not have been the work of a serial killer, but it was murder.

[Semper_Eadem]

I've always wondered if a Doctor/Med Student practising an illicit abortion trade secretly in Whitechapel might have been thought to be the Ripper by the folk of Whitechapel when he actually wasn't JTR.

It could be that accounts of sightings of this abortionist sneaking about Whitechapel were garbled with the JTR sightings or that this male abortionist was thought to be the Ripper but was not an abortionist but just a doctor or medical student trying to earn some extra cash by doing an illicit abortions on Prostitutes or anybody else excepting. Just food for thought.


S_E

What a messy post, sorry folks, what I meant was there perhaps a Doctor sneaking around Whitechapel for various illicit reasons, who might of been sighted by locals and perhaps thought to be the JTR?

The Butcher thought to have been JTR by people of the time probably wasn't JTR so perhaps the doctor wasn't either but maybe was doing an illegal practice of his own or was just a doctor seeing to his patients.

Regarding JTR's victims, I don't thing they were any victims of an abortionist but JTR's victims. I do tend to keep an open book on who could of been a JTR victim too. However, I do not think JTR's victims thought he was an abortionist but just another customer. Most of JTR Victims were just hooking so that they could get money for alcohol so they could at the very least escape sordid filthy Whitechapel in their minds or get money for food so they wouldn't starve to death.

[John Wheat]

Does anyone else on this forum believe that Jack the Ripper could be someone who has never been identified, named, suspected or written about?

Helena

I doubt it.

[HelenaWojtczak]

The reason I think this still is that NONE of the (is it?) 22 current suspects are "perfect", irrefutable or indisputable. If they were, we could all agree and then take up a different hobby.

And so, by elegant logic, if Jack isn't one of the 22, then he must be someone who has never come under suspicion, and that means someone we've never heard of.

Helena

[John Wheat]

The reason I think this still is that NONE of the (is it?) 22 current suspects are "perfect", irrefutable or indisputable. If they were, we could all agree and then take up a different hobby.

And so, by elegant logic, if Jack isn't one of the 22, then he must be someone who has never come under suspicion, and that means someone we've never heard of.

Helena

Hi Helena

There are more than 22 suspects admittedly many of them are poor. In fact many of the preferred suspects are poor. I know you've written a book about a preferred suspect who is also a terrible suspect. However in my opinion the case was investigated quite thoroughly as regards the number of people looked at and it is a case that has fascinated many ever since the C5 murders that I find it hard to believe the murderer has never been uncovered. The problem arises when you try to find a "perfect" suspect because at this stage there is never going to be one. However in my opinion one suspect WH Bury stands head and shoulders above the rest of them.

Cheers John

[Damaso Marte]

I strongly suspect so. In the past, I have phrased it, "I don't believe Jack the Ripper's real name has ever been posted on the Casebook forums". It's possible his name appears in police records that have been lost and that, absent a great discovery, no Casebook poster will ever read. The universe of suspects the police considered is surely greater than the universe of suspects of whom we are aware.

[DJA]

Ever considered that police knew who Jack was and were making sure he was not caught!
Most of the real clues point to one person.
Might not be on the suspect list,however he was involved in the case.

[Damaso Marte]

I have occasionally considered the possibility that the police intentionally let a Kosminski-type suspect get away (or get locked up on other, less newsworthy charges) deciding that it was better to let the Ripper run free than for the Ripper's identification to spark a pogrom where large numbers might be killed.

But only as a possibility, not as anything I consider likely.