Jack The Ripper solved?

[The Good Michael]

When I search eBay for JACK THE RIPPER BOOK I get

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/jack-the-ripper-book-/151161905698?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item2331f3a222

... Mr Marriott's!

Ebay answers search requests in ego order.

Mike

[Hunter]

Thank you for your response, Trevor.

As far as Dr Phillips and Annie Chapman why do you continue to raise this same issue despite clearly several times being told and shown that what you suggest is totally wrong. Do you only see what you want to see and accept what you think is correct?

I continue to raise the same issue because you do. You have formed a thesis without proper knowledge or evaluation of the evidence while accusing others of the same.

Wynne Baxter specifically asked Mr. Phillips if the missing organs could have been lost in transit to the mortuary. Phillips responded by stating that they were missing at the scene of the crime. Considering the injuries inflicted with the skin of the pubic area up to the umbilicus removed along with the organs, Phillips couldn't have missed it, unless he was totally derelict in his in situ examination - and he wasn't.

Kate Eddowes' body was in the custody of City Police Surgeon Gordon Brown from the time Brown arrived at the scene until the time he left the mortuary after the body had been stripped, the belongings examined and categorized, Foster's sketches of the injuries had been made, and he, Dr. Sequiera and Dr. Phillips had made a preliminary examination of the body. Considering what had been done to Annie Chapman and its significance, they would have been derelict in their duty to not have ascertained if any organs had been removed from Eddowes during that early examination.This would have been a priority. It was why Phillips was summoned by Brown and Phillips was in attendance. There is no way anyone but the killer could have taken the organs.

To suggest that these doctors, in this high profile series of murders covered up for someone taking the organs at the mortuary is facetious and gives a deliberate and false impression to an unwary public. This very practice is what has haunted Ripperology and its perception by historians and academics all along. It continues because this is unfortunately how one gets notoriety outside of the small group of real researchers in this field.

Its not that what you seem to dismiss is flawed. It just doesn't sell like a new suspect, or a new angle on this 125 year old case does. Being contrary to what's established gets attention. And notoriety and attention is what its all about, isn't it? You are not the first of this genre, Trevor, and you won't be the last. And thus, myths about these events and what took place will continue to be perpetuated because it is ripe for the picking. I only wish I believed in ghost, because there are a lot of people the souls of these victims and the people who went through this tragedy need to haunt, because expecting people to have a moral conscious concerning the lives and deaths of those who have gone before us is facetious as well.

[Monty]

Never a truer word Cris,

Monty

[lynn cates]

good theology

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"If you have 'solved' the murders of Nichols and Chapman, do you believe their killer had never attacked a woman previously, and would never have killed a third time, given the chance?'

Chance? Don't think my lad was looking for a chance to kill--just terribly confused. But I take your point. Is it possible he could have killed again? Certainly. Mary claimed that he tried to kill her and the kids on numerous occasions.

"While he might not perfectly fit the somewhat arbitrary definition of serial killer (must have at least three victims), wouldn't that only be because you don't know what else he may have done in the past, or would have gone on to do, if not for circumstances beyond his personal control?"

Good theology. Very Augustinian--so I quite agree. Yet, we are talking about those who in fact kill. (Not my terminology. And I should be positively delighted to place ALL social "scientific" jargon firmly into brackets for all eternity--never to be repeated.)

"If Ian Brady had fallen under a bus, or Peter Sutcliffe crashed his lorry, before they could kill the magic three times, would they have been any less the serial 'monsters' we know them to have been?"

What of just "monsters"? I quite agree. And, moreover, if the blessed old saint is correct, such are we all. Yet, I feel this compulsion to discover the WC killers, and psychology--nor yet theology--is not my preferred starting point.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

Of course, in 1888 the term serial killer did not exist, but that didn't concern Jack the Ripper, who clearly did. This was a real man who earned his nickname in the wake of the Chapman ripping, when he may only have killed twice. So if you have correctly identified that man, it's Jack the Ripper solved - serial killer or not quite.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you for your response, Trevor.




I continue to raise the same issue because you do. You have formed a thesis without proper knowledge or evaluation of the evidence while accusing others of the same.

Wynne Baxter specifically asked Mr. Phillips if the missing organs could have been lost in transit to the mortuary. Phillips responded by stating that they were missing at the scene of the crime. Considering the injuries inflicted with the skin of the pubic area up to the umbilicus removed along with the organs, Phillips couldn't have missed it, unless he was totally derelict in his in situ examination - and he wasn't.

Kate Eddowes' body was in the custody of City Police Surgeon Gordon Brown from the time Brown arrived at the scene until the time he left the mortuary after the body had been stripped, the belongings examined and categorized, Foster's sketches of the injuries had been made, and he, Dr. Sequiera and Dr. Phillips had made a preliminary examination of the body. Considering what had been done to Annie Chapman and its significance, they would have been derelict in their duty to not have ascertained if any organs had been removed from Eddowes during that early examination.This would have been a priority. It was why Phillips was summoned by Brown and Phillips was in attendance. There is no way anyone but the killer could have taken the organs.

To suggest that these doctors, in this high profile series of murders covered up for someone taking the organs at the mortuary is facetious and gives a deliberate and false impression to an unwary public. This very practice is what has haunted Ripperology and its perception by historians and academics all along. It continues because this is unfortunately how one gets notoriety outside of the small group of real researchers in this field.

Its not that what you seem to dismiss is flawed. It just doesn't sell like a new suspect, or a new angle on this 125 year old case does. Being contrary to what's established gets attention. And notoriety and attention is what its all about, isn't it? You are not the first of this genre, Trevor, and you won't be the last. And thus, myths about these events and what took place will continue to be perpetuated because it is ripe for the picking. I only wish I believed in ghost, because there are a lot of people the souls of these victims and the people who went through this tragedy need to haunt, because expecting people to have a moral conscious concerning the lives and deaths of those who have gone before us is facetious as well.

Take off the blinkers and the rose tinted spectacles. The myths have been created over the years but only take a few moments to dispel with the aid of common sense.

You also need to read in full my conclusions which appear in my new book because the content of this post clearly suggests you have not.

[Trevor Marriott]

On the one hand, known plagurist and self confessed liar Trevor Marriott

on the other, the incomparable fountain of knowledge and sense that is Mr Stewart P. Evans

that is all
Jenni

The facts speak for themselves they cant lie !!!!!!!

[lynn cates]

other three

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"So if you have correctly identified that man, it's Jack the Ripper solved."

Indeed? Thank you--I am honoured. Yet, I'd like to know about the other three.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Take off the blinkers and the rose tinted spectacles. The myths have been created over the years but only take a few moments to dispel with the aid of common sense.

You also need to read in full my conclusions which appear in my new book because the content of this post clearly suggests you have not.

Thank you, Trevor, for responding. I'll let you have the last word here.

[Tom_Wescott]

Its not that what you seem to dismiss is flawed. It just doesn't sell like a new suspect, or a new angle on this 125 year old case does. Being contrary to what's established gets attention. And notoriety and attention is what its all about, isn't it? You are not the first of this genre, Trevor, and you won't be the last. And thus, myths about these events and what took place will continue to be perpetuated because it is ripe for the picking.

Hi Cris. Can you think of any other well-known Ripper books from say the 90's or later that presented a new suspect and offered ideas "contrary to what's established" that you actually liked and feel are worthwhile or are you saying they're all just hack pieces of notoriety seeking Yankee dollar machines?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

I'd like very briefly to address a tangential issue raised here in relation to one particular "ripper myth", before returning - immediately, and without a fuss - back on topic.

The fact that the popular depiction of Jack as a "top-hatted toff" is not a modern Hollywood invention (as rightly pointed out) doesn't make it any more ridiculously remote from the likely appearance of the real killer. There were certainly no reliable police-endorsed witnesses who described men with top hats, capes or gladstone bags in the company of the victims, whereas there were several reports of opulently dressed men being accosted in that area for appearing conspicuously wealthy and out-of-place.

It is extremely doubtful that doctors and theatre-goers working and playing in Whitechapel were "upper class, wealthy men" or that they wore clothes befitting of same in the small hours. The Pavilion theatre, far from being the reserve of "toffs", was known to cater for Yiddish theatrical tastes, in recognition of the large, local, non-wealthy Jewish community. And the vast majority of "slummers" had nouse enough to dress down for the occasion.

So I'd suggest forgetting the idea that the alleged (but very unlikely) presence of toffs wearing expensive-looking clothes on the streets of Whitechapel played any part at all in the contemporary image of Jack in a top hat. It is perhaps more likely that popular culture, specifically the performances of Jekyll and Hyde, were influential in that regard.

In summary, then:

Is Jack the top-hatted toff a purely modern depiction?

No.

Does that stop it from being utter nonsense?

No.

As you were...

All the best,
Ben

[Stewart P Evans]

Well dressed

...
The fact that the popular depiction of Jack as a "top-hatted toff" is not a modern Hollywood invention (as rightly pointed out) doesn't make it any more ridiculously remote from the likely appearance of the real killer. There were certainly no reliable police-endorsed witnesses who described men with top hats, capes or gladstone bags in the company of the victims, whereas there were several reports of opulently dressed men being accosted in that area for appearing conspicuously wealthy and out-of-place.
It is extremely doubtful that doctors and theatre-goers working and playing in Whitechapel were "upper class, wealthy men" or that they wore clothes befitting of same in the small hours. The Pavilion theatre, far from being the reserve of "toffs", was known to cater for Yiddish theatrical tastes, in recognition of the large, local, non-wealthy Jewish community. And the vast majority of "slummers" had nouse enough to dress down for the occasion.
So I'd suggest forgetting the idea that the alleged (but very unlikely) presence of toffs wearing expensive-looking clothes on the streets of Whitechapel played any part at all in the contemporary image of Jack in a top hat. It is perhaps more likely that popular culture, specifically the performances of Jekyll and Hyde, were influential in that regard.
In summary, then:
Is Jack the top-hatted toff a purely modern depiction?
No.
Does that stop it from being utter nonsense?
No.
As you were...
All the best,
Ben

They didn't have to be 'toffs', or even 'opulently dressed' to be wearing a top (silk) hat and be well dressed.

There is ample evidence to show that well dressed men were indeed in Whitechapel at night. Some even wearing top hats. Indeed many newspapers actually reported a statement by McCarthy that Mary Kelly herself had been seen at 11.00 pm, on the eve of her murder, in the Britannia with a 'very respectable, well dressed', young man with a dark moustache.

[Stewart P Evans]

Top Hatted Image

The top hatted image of the Ripper depicted on the cover of the Penny Illustrated Paper of 17 November 1888 obviously originated from, or owed a lot to, the story of the suspicious 'gentleman' given by Mrs Paumier in the very same issue.

[Stewart P Evans]

Some of the villains...

Some of the villains were obviously well dressed too, as witness this report of 4 September 1888.

[Stewart P Evans]

'A Swell'

Continuing in the same vein, the Ludwig coffee stall incident of 19 September 1888, occurred in the area at 3-45 am. Fineberg, the victim, described the well dressed Ludwig by stating, "There goes a swell..."