I think I have found him.

[John G]

This is "like a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." It's not Prince Albert's spouse is it? Because if it is, in all sincerity I'll take some convincing!

[RockySullivan]

I wouldn't rule out gang activity in respect of either the Torso mysteries or Whitechapel murders. However, that is pure conjecture and far from being a proven fact. In fact, it's pure conjecture as to whether one or more of the Torso victims were even murdered, let alone evidence that they can be positively linked to other crimes.

"The CORONER, in summing up, observed that they had not been able to produce any evidence as to the identity of the deceased, but the evidence of both medical gentlemen engaged in the case clearly showed that the unfortunate woman had died a violent death. It was a matter of congratulation that the present case did not appear to have any connexion with the previous murders that had taken place in the district, and the body might have, for ought they knew to the contrary, been brought from the West-end and deposited where it was found.

The jury at once returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_pinchin.html

[richardnunweek]

Hi .
I agree that the murder dates were premeditated, and I agree his motive was a personal one.
I also believe Kelly was his objective..
His name,,,I haven't a clue,and I have been studying the case for 52 years.
Regards Richard.

[Mayerling]

This is "like a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." It's not Prince Albert's spouse is it? Because if it is, in all sincerity I'll take some convincing!

If it was Prince Albert's spouse, would "Mrs. Brown" have deserved to be in the can?

And what would her heir's oldest son have thought? "I bet Dr. Gull helped her!"

Seriously though, Pierre had aroused a degree of real curiosity, and hopefully something will turn up eventually so he can reveal his theory. It may be correct - for Pierre's sake I hope it is. Or it just may be another theory. After 127 years it is hard to find enough real evidence that everyone will accept.

Again, best of luck Pierre.

Jeff

[John G]

"The CORONER, in summing up, observed that they had not been able to produce any evidence as to the identity of the deceased, but the evidence of both medical gentlemen engaged in the case clearly showed that the unfortunate woman had died a violent death. It was a matter of congratulation that the present case did not appear to have any connexion with the previous murders that had taken place in the district, and the body might have, for ought they knew to the contrary, been brought from the West-end and deposited where it was found.

The jury at once returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_pinchin.html

Yes, I know, but that's the verdict of a Victorian jury, based upon the opinions of Victorian GPs, the validity of which has been seriously questioned by a modern forensic expert. Even the official cause of death, syncope, is pretty much meaningless in this context.

A much more relevant issue is: are there any sensible alternative causes of death, other than murder, taking into account the attendant circumstances?

[John G]

If it was Prince Albert's spouse, would "Mrs. Brown" have deserved to be in the can?

And what would her heir's oldest son have thought? "I bet Dr. Gull helped her!"

Seriously though, Pierre had aroused a degree of real curiosity, and hopefully something will turn up eventually so he can reveal his theory. It may be correct - for Pierre's sake I hope it is. Or it just may be another theory. After 127 years it is hard to find enough real evidence that everyone will accept.

Again, best of luck Pierre.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Ah yes, Queen V's trusted gillie. No doubt he would have exercised his wise counsel in such a way that it would have acted as a powerful restraining influence!

As I noted earlier, as I seriously doubt any witnesses are still alive, I'll require scientific, I.e DNA, evidence to be totally convinced. And preferably without the involvement of Russell Edwards or Dr L and his dodgy DNA machine!

[GUT]

Hello All. Actually, since I have been with Casebook, we've had 2 similar posts. Both purported to have a solution, the language was similar, but the poster left and never returned.

Short version: I think you've been had.

Cheers.
LC

Yep.

But look at the argument it's generated.

[Shaggyrand]

If it was Prince Albert's spouse, would "Mrs. Brown" have deserved to be in the can?

I do believe that Alexandria of Denmark would have made a pleasant smoking experience in a can.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Since I first visited this site sometime in 2003, joining in 2005, Ive seen umpteen revelation posts. One as I recall was done specifically to dupe posters into excited debate and then the author would sit back and critique Ripperology in general on his own blog.

Anyone who has studied obsessively like many of us have would give our left arm for the real "Final Solution", and for my money the group that its likely to come from is within our own community. Not from people without a true and abiding interest in solving these puzzles. Not without the passion. Why? Because these murders are part of a bigger puzzle, and one must know all the pieces that have already been figuratively fit together by the excellent researchers, historians, physicians and law enforcement officers that have studied diligently over the years to find any viable answers.

I have far more faith in a second coming than I do with this latest pronouncement.

Cheers folks...and don't stop chasing anything just yet.

[RockySullivan]

Yes, I know, but that's the verdict of a Victorian jury, based upon the opinions of Victorian GPs, the validity of which has been seriously questioned by a modern forensic expert. Even the official cause of death, syncope, is pretty much meaningless in this context.

A much more relevant issue is: are there any sensible alternative causes of death, other than murder, taking into account the attendant circumstances?

Laughable!

"Dr Phillip's is one of my heroes! Mind you, some people on this thread don't seem to think that the opinions of any of the medical professionals should count for much-makes you wonder why they bothered to qualify, when there's obviously so many talented amateurs about!"

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8862&page=88

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I take the point - there is no direct evidence to that effect but isn't the most common reason for dismembering a body a desire to conceal either the body itself, the cause of death or both? Can you think of any specific case in which a dismembered body was found where murder was not involved? I'm not saying there are none, but one or two examples would help.

You only have to look at the inquest reports on torsos found in the thames etc what are mnay of the verdicts "Found dead" which in today's terms probably equates to an open verdict.

As you say one reason for dismemberment and I believe it is a strong reason, is to conceal a death not murder.

If you are going to murder a street prostitute for example that murder is either going to be in the street .i.e the Ripper murders in which case there is no need to try to hide that fact and no need to dismember the bodies to try to hide the identity , and dispose of the body parts

In a prostitutes room .i. e Kelly and again why would there be a need for the killer to go to the lengths of dismembering the body and disposing of it and trying to hide the identity, and run the risk of either being seen disposing of the parts, or caught in possession of them. A killer could simply exit through the door leaving the victim and no clues for the police.

Neither of the above make any logical sense.

Of course there is always a possibility that one one or some could have been the subject of domestic murders. Then there would be a need to dispose of the body and try to hide the identity for obvious reasons.

Another suggestion might be even more simple, that being someone from a poor family dying of natural causes, and the family not having the money to bury that person.

And then we get back to deaths incurred by the the taking of medicines from back street medics, or some form of back street illegal medical operation.

As I see it there are no other alternatives.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Ah yes, Queen V's trusted gillie. No doubt he would have exercised his wise counsel in such a way that it would have acted as a powerful restraining influence!

As I noted earlier, as I seriously doubt any witnesses are still alive, I'll require scientific, I.e DNA, evidence to be totally convinced. And preferably without the involvement of Russell Edwards or Dr L and his dodgy DNA machine!

Hi John,

Maybe in the Caucasus region near Georgia is some healthy 127 year old who may have vaguely heard in his infancy about what happened - hard to think that he'd have been running the East End. They didn't eat much yogurt there in 1888.

Any reliable DNA has to be of such a nature everyone can accept it. What DNA "evidence" has been presented by various people for various theories or items in this case is so crappy or laughable it sets back the development of such an interesting innovation in forensics by decades.

Jeff

[DJA]

[QUOTE=Pierre)

So what can I tell you about what I know about him?


8.He wasn´t interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.

Pierre[/QUOTE]

Well you are not Lucky Pierre.

If you have Jack the Ripper,you would know why he did not rip Stride.

You are welcome to PM me with the first initial of either his first or middle name.
Um....no not J or T.....

Might save you a lot of time.

All the best.

[Mayerling]

I do believe that Alexandria of Denmark would have made a pleasant smoking experience in a can.

'Twould have been a whiff of Tivoli Gardens or Elsinore - perchance a dream about the "Little Mermaid" or "The Steadfast Tin Soldier".

[RockySullivan]

You only have to look at the inquest reports on torsos found in the thames etc what are mnay of the verdicts "Found dead" which in today's terms probably equates to an open verdict.

As you say one reason for dismemberment and I believe it is a strong reason, is to conceal a death not murder.

If you are going to murder a street prostitute for example that murder is either going to be in the street .i.e the Ripper murders in which case there is no need to try to hide that fact and no need to dismember the bodies to try to hide the identity , and dispose of the body parts

In a prostitutes room .i. e Kelly and again why would there be a need for the killer to go to the lengths of dismembering the body and disposing of it and trying to hide the identity, and run the risk of either being seen disposing of the parts, or caught in possession of them. A killer could simply exit through the door leaving the victim and no clues for the police.

Neither of the above make any logical sense.

Of course there is always a possibility that one one or some could have been the subject of domestic murders. Then there would be a need to dispose of the body and try to hide the identity for obvious reasons.

Another suggestion might be even more simple, that being someone from a poor family dying of natural causes, and the family not having the money to bury that person.

And then we get back to deaths incurred by the the taking of medicines from back street medics, or some form of back street illegal medical operation.

As I see it there are no other alternatives.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I've just posted the pinchin inquest where the verdict was murder. Your right..if the murder occurred in the street or in the victims residence there is no need for dismemberment and dispersal of parts...but when the murder occurs in the killer's home or work...dismemberment and disposal makes sense. The pinching torso was mutilated in the abdomen just like the ripper victims and the other torsos