Jack The Ripper solved?

[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.

[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

[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 !!!!!!!

[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.

[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

[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

[Monty]

Never a truer word Cris,

Monty

[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.

[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

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[caz]

Hello Trevor.

"There is no denying that a serial killer was at work . . . "

Indeed? Whilst dispelling myths, shall we focus on this one?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

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?

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?

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?

It's a fine line, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Hi all,

Found this today:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/431148/Jack-the-Ripper-mystery-solved-by-top-detective-after-125-years

Apparently we don't need to talk about it anymore, it's all been solved.

Rich

The writer claims that the womens' organs were removed in the mortuaries tending the bodies. If that's true, it really throws a spanner in the works!

[lynn cates]

Mything the mark.

Hello Trevor.

"There is no denying that a serial killer was at work . . . "

Indeed? Whilst dispelling myths, shall we focus on this one?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Back to the original post on this thread...
Excerpts from the article and Trevor Marriott's quotes are in bold and quotation marks:



“ 'The facts of this case have been totally distorted over the years,' said Mr Marriott. 'The general public have been completely misled by any number of authors and publishers.' "

This is true to a large extent.

“ 'Jack is supposed to be responsible for five victims, but there were other similar murders before and after the ones attributed to him, both in this country and abroad in America and Germany.' ”

This is true, too.


"In total Mr Marriott has discovered 17 unsolved Ripper-like murders committed between 1863 and 1894. He believes a German merchant seaman called Carl Feigenbaum was responsible for some, but not all of those killings.
Feigenbaum was a crew member on ships that regularly docked near Whitechapel. He was executed in New York in 1896 after being caught by US police fleeing the scene of a Ripper-style murder there."

Has it been established through the records that Feigenbaum, or 'Zahn' as was sometimes his surname, was a crew member of any of these ships at the time of the murders in Whitechapel?... supposition does not count. As you say, Trevor, let's deal with facts.

“'The reality is there was just a series of unsolved murders and they would have sunk into oblivion many years ago, but for a reporter called Thomas Bulling,' said Mr Marriott. Bulling was a drunken journalist with many police contacts at Scotland Yard, who in 1888 was working for the London-based Central News Agency. He was paid to supply crime stories for newspapers.
'Police got a letter that Bulling had written about the murders which he signed ‘Jack the Ripper’, said Mr Marriott. 'It was the most ingenious piece of journalism that has kept this mystery alive for 125 years. Even now any modern-day serial killer is called a ‘Ripper’.' "

This was apparently the view of certain top SY officials. You are mainly referring to Jack Littlechild's impression in his letter to Sims, found by Stewart P. Evans. So, how is any of this some new revelation? This article, to anyone not familiar with the history of the case, implies that this is a new deduction made by you. Either by accident or by design that is a deception.

“ 'You have to ask yourself if ‘Jack’ is an urban myth. Around 80 per cent of the books about him have a picture of a chap on the front stalking the streets of London in a long black cape and a top hat. They were the clothes of an upper class, wealthy man. But back in 1888 if someone dressed like that had actually walked around Whitechapel in the dead of night they wouldn't’t have lasted five minutes. It wasn't’t just one of the most crime-riddled areas of London, it was one of the worst areas in the country. It’s a false image that has been created by the likes of Hollywood film makers.' "

I don't know if the former would be completely likely or not, but the 'myth of Jack the Ripper' has been out there. But the very Ripperologists who you now accuse of having 'blinkers on' are well aware of these myths and regularly debunk them.

“ 'New facts have come to light, we’ve now disproved the claim that the killer removed organs from the victims at the scenes of the murders, the organs were removed later once they were in a mortuary.' "

You have produced no new facts, but have disregarded contemporary evidence such as Dr. Phillips testifying that Annie Chapman had organs removed at the scene. This is disregarding direct contemporary evidence for the sake of a theory.

“ 'There just isn't a Jack The Ripper as such.' ”

That is probably true. And I would go so far as to include many Ripperologists' perceptions of what 'Jack' should be and do in their inclusion or exclusion of certain victims - just look at the Stride thread - but evidence does strongly suggest that a serial murderer may have been at large at the time. Even you apparently concede that several of these murders could have been committed by the same person.

So, how have you solved this case?

No I haven't solved the case far from it simply dispelled many of the myths and wild speculative theories that have propped this mystery up and kept it alive all of these years.

There is no denying that a serial killer was at work but not one whose name was Jack the Ripper. It is that name that has helped to keep this mystery alive from the public's perception. They picture a man with a black hat, black bag etc, killing women and removing organs which clearly is a false image created by television and authors and the press over the years.

Had it not been for that name and the myths that have surrounded this what would be left? Nothing more than a series of similar unsolved murders that had it not been for the aforementioned would have drifted into obscurity many years ago.

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?

[Stewart P Evans]

Top-Hatted

Top-Hatted image of Jack the Ripper of 17 November 1888.