Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[John G]

Hello Jeff,

But we can only speculate that he spent little time with the victims. If you accept Stride as a JtR victim it's possible he was with her for several hours: see for example the testimony of Best and Gardner and William Marshall, who refers to a suspect who was educated, well-spoken, even charming. And, as I've noted before, Kelly might well have been asleep when he attacked her. In fact, whether you accept Hutchinson's suspect, or say, Cox's Blotchy suspect, there is a reasonable possibility that he spent several hours in her company as well.

[Garry Wroe]

"with little to no precrime interaction between the victim and perpetrator"

You think so do you? Well lets actually look at what you appear to be saying as you have bought no new evidence to support your claim but simply repeat the same mantra… If you actually look at your definition of Blitz attack it clearly has the word 'little' suggesting Blitz attackers can have a degree of contact with there victim, even by your own statement. This has already been pointed out to you.

It’s not my definition of the blitz attack we are dealing with here. I’ve been citing the definition used by criminologists the world over – Roy Hazelwood included.

The only thing we actually believe Jack said, If Mrs Long indeed saw him with the victim is 'Will You" hardly a long protracted conversation as I have been pointing out.

Er, no it isn’t. That was the element of the conversation overheard by Mrs Long. The woman presumed to have been Chapman and her companion were already standing together when sighted. They were still standing together when Mrs Long left the vicinity. If Cadosch is to be believed there was further conversation at the crime scene itself.

You appear to be confused by the term ‘little to no precrime interaction’. The ‘little’ means next to nothing. Almost zero. No more than a couple of words. Then BANG!!! An onslaught of unrestrained and ferocious violence.

Now consider the scene witnessed by Lawende and party involving Kate Eddowes at the Church Passage entry. It requires no words from me to dismiss any possibility that Kate was the victim of a blitz attacker.

No i'm saying the word blitz has a clear meaning. And presumably who ever you are quoting and claiming 'used it in a different way'

I’m quoting every modern law enforcement agency the world over – the FBI included. You are the person who fails to understand the term, which is ironic since you are the person who introduced it into the debate with reference to Roy Hazelwood and his seeming support for your Kosminski theory. Now you’ve dug yourself into a hole. Using the definition applied by Roy Hazelwood and those of his colleagues who developed the FBI Ripper profile, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, a blitz-style attacker.

Attually as your own definition contains the word 'Little' its almost certainly you that miss understand the very thing you are claiming. As Jack the Ripper clearly used very Little ruse 'Will you' to convince the prostitutes he was a client.

The blitz and ruse attackers are two entirely different entities. Each operates in a distinct and specific way. It says much about the depth of your criminolgical knowledge that you are able to confuse the two classifications.

I'm a producer who uses 'expert opinion' to underpin FACTS in a story. Having a good grasp of the english language is fundamental in that pursuit.

I’ll frame that one.

Its always interesting that when someone is losing an argument they seek to hide behind others apron strings by putting out these kinds of 'Ruse' to distract from coherent argument.

So you’re of the opinion that my reference to Stewart’s exasperation is an indication that I’m losing the argument?

Er, Jeff, so far you’ve cited Bill Beadle, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas and Don Rumbelow, to each of whom you have attached ‘expert’ status.

On that basis you lost the argument almost as soon as it started.

I presume that by this your hoping that I won't mention your failour to address my comments on Major Smith.

Which comments on Major Smith? You mean the same Major Smith who knew Kosminski, investigated him, cleared him of any involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, and who then savaged Anderson in print for having suggested that Kosminski was the killer?

No skill was required other than leaving his front door, wandering around for opportunity, asking prostitutes for business …

The women would have approached him. They would have led him to a spot where business could be conducted with relative safety from arrest.

You fail to grasp even that much.

And what’s this about skill?

The issue is not that of skill. It is one of native intelligence. This was a man who trawled for victims during the hours which gave him the best opportunity for victims as well as avoiding detection. Thus he was able to calculate risk against reward. He was able to converse with potential victims without frightening them off. He was able to control these women such that no-one saw or heard anything suspicious whilst the crimes were in progress. Afterwards he was able to clean himself up and behave in such a manner that he avoided suspicion in those who knew or interacted with him.

Native intelligence.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Jeff,

But we can only speculate that he spent little time with the victims. If you accept Stride as a JtR victim it's possible he was with her for several hours: see for example the testimony of Best and Gardner and William Marshall, who refers to a suspect who was educated, well-spoken, even charming. And, as I've noted before, Kelly might well have been asleep when he attacked her. In fact, whether you accept Hutchinson's suspect, or say, Cox's Blotchy suspect, there is a reasonable possibility that he spent several hours in her company as well.

Bingo JohnG
Great points.

[Abby Normal]

It’s not my definition of the blitz attack we are dealing with here. I’ve been citing the definition used by criminologists the world over – Roy Hazelwood included.


Er, no it isn’t. That was the element of the conversation overheard by Mrs Long. The woman presumed to have been Chapman and her companion were already standing together when sighted. They were still standing together when Mrs Long left the vicinity. If Cadosch is to be believed there was further conversation at the crime scene itself.

You appear to be confused by the term ‘little to no precrime interaction’. The ‘little’ means next to nothing. Almost zero. No more than a couple of words. Then BANG!!! An onslaught of unrestrained and ferocious violence.

Now consider the scene witnessed by Lawende and party involving Kate Eddowes at the Church Passage entry. It requires no words from me to dismiss any possibility that Kate was the victim of a blitz attacker.


I’m quoting every modern law enforcement agency the world over – the FBI included. You are the person who fails to understand the term, which is ironic since you are the person who introduced it into the debate with reference to Roy Hazelwood and his seeming support for your Kosminski theory. Now you’ve dug yourself into a hole. Using the definition applied by Roy Hazelwood and those of his colleagues who developed the FBI Ripper profile, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, a blitz-style attacker.


The blitz and ruse attackers are two entirely different entities. Each operates in a distinct and specific way. It says much about the depth of your criminolgical knowledge that you are able to confuse the two classifications.


I’ll frame that one.


So you’re of the opinion that my reference to Stewart’s exasperation is an indication that I’m losing the argument?

Er, Jeff, so far you’ve cited Bill Beadle, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas and Don Rumbelow, to each of whom you have attached ‘expert’ status.

On that basis you lost the argument almost as soon as it started.


Which comments on Major Smith? You mean the same Major Smith who knew Kosminski, investigated him, cleared him of any involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, and who then savaged Anderson in print for having suggested that Kosminski was the killer?


The women would have approached him. They would have led him to a spot where business could be conducted with relative safety from arrest.

You fail to grasp even that much.

And what’s this about skill?

The issue is not that of skill. It is one of native intelligence. This was a man who trawled for victims during the hours which gave him the best opportunity for victims as well as avoiding detection. Thus he was able to calculate risk against reward. He was able to converse with potential victims without frightening them off. He was able to control these women such that no-one saw or heard anything suspicious whilst the crimes were in progress. Afterwards he was able to clean himself up and behave in such a manner that he avoided suspicion in those who knew or interacted with him.

Native intelligence.

totally agree with this 100%
Its what I have been trying to say, but not nearly as eloquent or concise.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Abby.

[Jeff Leahy]

It’s not my definition of the blitz attack we are dealing with here. I’ve been citing the definition used by criminologists the world over – Roy Hazelwood included.

In which case its clear that Hazelwood doesn't agree with your interpretation of the definition. Because he calls Jack the Ripper a blitz attacker.

The question is do i trust an expert in the field or an amateur like yourself?

Er, no it isn’t. That was the element of the conversation overheard by Mrs Long. The woman presumed to have been Chapman and her companion were already standing together when sighted. They were still standing together when Mrs Long left the vicinity. If Cadosch is to be believed there was further conversation at the crime scene itself.

That is the element we know about. Everything else is speculation. Your trying to draw the conclusion it required sophistication. However we simply don't know that. Hazelwood concludes obviously NOT MUCH SOPHISTICATION WAS REQUIRED..

And I tend to agree with him.

You appear to be confused by the term ‘little to no precrime interaction’. The ‘little’ means next to nothing. Almost zero. No more than a couple of words. Then BANG!!! An onslaught of unrestrained and ferocious violence.

No I'm simply saying that it allows for interaction. Your interpretation allows for none…

I think Hazelwwod is better placed than yourself as he is an Expert

Now consider the scene witnessed by Lawende and party involving Kate Eddowes at the Church Passage entry. It requires no words from me to dismiss any possibility that Kate was the victim of a blitz attacker.

Hey babe fancy a shag.. How much you got… a shiny six pence…lets wait tip the geezers over there have disappeared….. END

I’m quoting every modern law enforcement agency the world over – the FBI included. You are the person who fails to understand the term, which is ironic since you are the person who introduced it into the debate with reference to Roy Hazelwood and his seeming support for your Kosminski theory. Now you’ve dug yourself into a hole. Using the definition applied by Roy Hazelwood and those of his colleagues who developed the FBI Ripper profile, Jack the Ripper was not, could not have been, a blitz-style attacker.

Thats your interpretaion of Blitz attack…Hazelwood who is an expert clearly does not agree with you

I agree with the Expert

The blitz and ruse attackers are two entirely different entities. Each operates in a distinct and specific way. It says much about the depth of your criminolgical knowledge that you are able to confuse the two classifications.

Well I've reconstructed a few hundered murders in my time….But as I said an expert Hazelwood disagrees with your interpretation that blitz attackers can have no contact. It allows for the killer to meet throw a ruse and attack quickly shortly afterwards.

So you’re of the opinion that my reference to Stewart’s exasperation is an indication that I’m losing the argument?

Er, Jeff, so far you’ve cited Bill Beadle, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas and Don Rumbelow, to each of whom you have attached ‘expert’ status.

I quote experts thats the nature of producing a documentary. What I don't do on the boards is try and hide behind the apron strings of other posters.

Which comments on Major Smith? You mean the same Major Smith who knew Kosminski, investigated him, cleared him of any involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, and who then savaged Anderson in print for having suggested that Kosminski was the killer?

You made a series of statements claiming Major Smith named Kozminski. I pointed out to you that this wasn't interlay true and that what he said and anderson relied is clearly more complex than you seem to believe

The women would have approached him. They would have led him to a spot where business could be conducted with relative safety from arrest.

You don't know which of the two spoke first none knows that.

And what’s this about skill?

He required no skill. Just the ability to ask for 'business'

The issue is not that of skill. It is one of native intelligence. This was a man who trawled for victims during the hours which gave him the best opportunity for victims as well as avoiding detection. Thus he was able to calculate risk against reward. He was able to converse with potential victims without frightening them off. He was able to control these women such that no-one saw or heard anything suspicious whilst the crimes were in progress. Afterwards he was able to clean himself up and behave in such a manner that he avoided suspicion in those who knew or interacted with him.

Its you who have made an issue of terminology claiming Hazelwood was mistaken. He wasn't only your interpretation is incorrect.

Jack required little if any skill. As Hazelwood said he was lucky

Native intelligence.

Native intelligence? Like an Urban Fox..I could go with that but we are still talking about a disorganised serial killer.

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

In which case its clear that Hazelwood doesn't agree with your interpretation of the definition. Because he calls Jack the Ripper a blitz attacker.

Non sequitur.

Since the definition I’ve presented is that formulated by the FBI there remains one of two possibilities. Either Mr Hazelwood is unfamiliar with the FBI’s own classificational literature, or his knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders is insufficient for him to have designated the Ripper a blitz attacker.

My money’s on the latter.

The question is do i trust an expert in the field or an amateur like yourself?

Do what you like. Anyone with a semblance of intelligence would research the issue and arrive at their own conclusion. You’ll probably take the easy option and continue to quote those who you define as experts – essentially anyone who expresses a view which seemingly supports your belief that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

I quote experts thats the nature of producing a documentary.

Yes, I’ve seen some of your TV output, including the programme in which you contacted the spirit of Kate Eddowes in the cellar of the Ten Bells. Gripping stuff. Especially the bit where ‘Kate’ revealed the name of her killer.

Who was it again?

Er …

Oh, yes ... I remember.

Aaron Kosminski.

Now there’s a shocker.

Native intelligence? Like an Urban Fox..I could go with that but we are still talking about a disorganised serial killer.

Well, you are. Most, however, are not shackled by agenda-driven thinking and thus evaluate the evidence for what it is rather than what they’d like it to be. Doubtless if anyone did happen to agree with you they’d soon be elevated to the status of expert.

[Garry Wroe]

Oh, and by the bye, Jeff, with reference to yet another myth you've been peddling on this thread, psychotic serialists who kill during relatively lucid periods tend not to become passive once their psychosis reasserts itself. They go out and kill with even more ferocity and less restraint than was the case during the 'lucid' phase.

[Jeff Leahy]

Non sequitur.
Since the definition I’ve presented is that formulated by the FBI there remains one of two possibilities. Either Mr Hazelwood is unfamiliar with the FBI’s own classificational literature, or his knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders is insufficient for him to have designated the Ripper a blitz attacker.

Or Thirdly that Mr Hazelwood actually bothered to read the entirety of the FBi quote you provide and concluded that very little contact on the night was required by the killer… as is self evident in the word 'Little'

Hence : Disorganized serial killer

Do what you like. Anyone with a semblance of intelligence would research the issue and arrive at their own conclusion. You’ll probably take the easy option and continue to quote those who you define as experts – essentially anyone who expresses a view which seemingly supports your belief that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

No i'll continue with the FACTS. Jack required no skill other than asking a prostitute for business. The victim took the killer somewhere quiet where she was subjected to a sudden and surprising attack that took her off guard. I'd refer to this as a blitz attack because that what it is in the true meaning of the word.

I'm not really interested in the samantic's of what you believe something says, however I think it in poor taste that you criticise Hazelwood when clearly its your own observation that is in error.

Yes, I’ve seen some of your TV output, including the programme in which you contacted the spirit of Kate Eddowes in the cellar of the Ten Bells. Gripping stuff. Especially the bit where ‘Kate’ revealed the name of her killer.

The Definitive Story does not contain a scene with Kate endows in the Ten Bells, in fact it doesn't contain the Ten Bells other than one brief wide shot of the Church next door. It certainly doesn't contain any of the victims suggesting the name of any suspect and does not name Aaron Kozminski as Jack the Ripper.

I suggest you do your research properly. And actually read carefully the information you claim supports your point of view.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

, psychotic serialists .

I'll watch out for Salvador Dali

[John G]

Hello Jeff,

The basis on which serial killers are categorized as organized or disorganized derives from the research of Hazlewood and Douglas (1980). However, this study, although pioneering, has been much criticised, not least for its relatively small sample size.

Canter et al (2004) http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/8639/1/CanterOrganised.pdf undertook a detailed analysis of the model, with a conclusion that, "These results throw considerable doubt on the utility of this dichotomy in any academic considerations. The taxonomy proposed in the Crime Classification Manual as a naturally occurring distinction between serial sexual murderers or their crime scenes does not garner even the weakest support from the data gathered here." (ibid, 32).

Instead, Canter's research found no distinction between the two types of serial murder, and that Hazlewood's research therefore lacked "empirical validity." In fact the conclusion was that all such crimes will have organized elements to them, and the differences may be the different ways in which they may show the disorganized aspects of crimes: "The results demonstrate that instead of being a basis for distinguishing between serial killings all such crimes will have a recognizable Organized quality to them as might be postulated from the very definition of a series of vicious crimes in which the offender was not detected until he had carried out a number of the offences. Rather then being one subtype of serial killer, being organized is typical of serial killers as a whole." (ibid, 32).

The fact is that the Hazlewood study is now 35 years old and, in the intervening period, criminology, like life in general, has moved on. Time, methinks, to start consulting different, more up to date, experts- may I suggest David Canter!

[Garry Wroe]

Or Thirdly that Mr Hazelwood actually bothered to read the entirety of the FBi quote you provide and concluded that very little contact on the night was required by the killer… as is self evident in the word 'Little'

Who said I’d provided a direct FBI quotation? Not me, that’s for sure. I paraphrased the definition of the blitz attack as accepted within the criminological paradigm. The FBI definition states that the blitz attack involves no precrime interaction between offender and victim.

No interaction.

This definition, however, was relaxed when it was recognized that on occasions an obvious blitz attacker might utter two or three words before launching an assault on a victim. If you’d actually read and absorbed what I’d written you’d recall that I qualified the definition with: ‘more often than not first contact is the attack’.

But you don’t read and you don’t absorb.

I'm not really interested in the samantic's of what you believe something says, however I think it in poor taste that you criticise Hazelwood when clearly its your own observation that is in error.

Again, you don’t read and you don’t absorb.

The Definitive Story does not contain a scene with Kate endows in the Ten Bells …

You don’t read and you don’t absorb.

I made no mention of The Definitive Story. None whatsoever. It’s you that keeps banging on about it as though it is the subject of this thread.

It isn’t.

I suggest you do your research properly. And actually read carefully the information you claim supports your point of view.

Anybody got the number of the Samaritans?

[Abby Normal]

Who said I’d provided a direct FBI quotation? Not me, that’s for sure. I paraphrased the definition of the blitz attack as accepted within the criminological paradigm. The FBI definition states that the blitz attack involves no precrime interaction between offender and victim.

No interaction.

This definition, however, was relaxed when it was recognized that on occasions an obvious blitz attacker might utter two or three words before launching an assault on a victim. If you’d actually read and absorbed what I’d written you’d recall that I qualified the definition with: ‘more often than not first contact is the attack’.

But you don’t read and you don’t absorb.


Again, you don’t read and you don’t absorb.


You don’t read and you don’t absorb.

I made no mention of The Definitive Story. None whatsoever. It’s you that keeps banging on about it as though it is the subject of this thread.

It isn’t.


Anybody got the number of the Samaritans?

Hi Garry
Jeff unfortunately also keeps conveniently leaving out the part where they say that the attack and murder takes place where the subject first encounters the victim. Something the ripper obviously didn't do.

[Garry Wroe]

That's right, Abby. It's why the FBI refers to the blitz attack as an 'ambush'.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Garry
Jeff unfortunately also keeps conveniently leaving out the part where they say that the attack and murder takes place where the subject first encounters the victim. Something the ripper obviously didn't do.

As I've pointed out several times now, the distance between the place the victim was seen with the possible killer and the murder spot are a matter of feet…

The place Chapman was murdered is now open on a Sunday so you can pace it out

Yours Jeff