I think I have found him.

[Debra A]

The Thames is tidal as far upstream as Teddington Lock, but nowhere near Reading.
That study you posted looks interesting Debra. I was going to attempt something similar, but I never got round to it as I read that the police at the time thought there wouldn't have been much movement up or down stream. Apparently, all those bends on the river tend to throw any flotsam to the outside of the first bend it reaches, where it stays. So they concluded the parts were dumped near to where they were found. I'm not sure how true that is, but it sounds reasonable - especially for the parts found on dry land.

Yes, tidal in the area where EJ, Whitehall and the Rainham remains were found but not in Reading.

Rogan- It was reported at the time of Elizabeth Jackson's death that police thought her remains had been thrown into the Thames from the Albert Bridge, which connects the embankment side where Shelley House was situated with Battersea Park on the other side. All dump sites.
John Savage's calculations using historical tide data from the day of dumping support that theory and show it was a sound suggestion by police.
Even the Park-side land find was in frame ground very close to the Thames and Albert Bridge.

[Debra A]

I have no technical knowledge but as a layman I might suggest that the river as a river flowing into the sea is subject to tidal flows. I have just read a subsequent post and have found this in answer to your question as to whethr the river would flow

"Above Teddington lock all is peaceful with a steady predictable and controlled flow"

So would parcels containing bodies remain in the part of the river where they were deposited or move with the flow ? I would suggest the latter.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well John does have that technical knowledge thankfully, rather than just guessing.
The point was, the section of the Thames where Elizabeth's remains were dumped was tidal and police thought, going by the places the various parts ended up along the Thames, that they had been thrown from one place. John's calculations show this was highly plausible.
The Thames at Reading is not tidal and so nothing can be carried off with the tide for any significant stretch of the river, so the analogy with where Dyer's poor little victims were found is totally irrelevant.

[John G]

You do realize that quote was from you right?

Hi Rocky,

Yes, I assumed you were agreeing with me! I therefore apologize to you if I misunderstood. Look, I do respect Dr Phillips' opinions, and maybe I've been a little harsh on the Victorian GPs. However, their opinions need to be considered critically, and not just completely accepted without question, and that includes Dr Phillips.

It's also important to consider new evidence that is presented to us so, for instance, if a modern forensic pathologist says something that undermines some aspect of, say, Dr Phillips' conclusions, which I've hitherto accepted then, of course, I might amend my own opinion. It's surely what being objective is all about.

The fact is some posters form an opinion and stick to it rigidly. Well, I'm afraid I don't, and I'm therefore perfectly willing to consider new evidence as it becomes available. And, if that means I occasionally change or refine my opinions so be it. For instance, I've argued forcefully in the past that the Tottenham Torso is probably linked to some of the other Torso crimes, but Debra's persuasive arguments have made me reconsider that view. Does this make me inconsistent at times. Absolutely. But I'd sooner be inconsistent than stick rigidly to a discredited /undermined theory.

[Debra A]

The Thames is tidal as far upstream as Teddington Lock, but nowhere near Reading.
That study you posted looks interesting Debra. I was going to attempt something similar, but I never got round to it as I read that the police at the time thought there wouldn't have been much movement up or down stream. Apparently, all those bends on the river tend to throw any flotsam to the outside of the first bend it reaches, where it stays. So they concluded the parts were dumped near to where they were found. I'm not sure how true that is, but it sounds reasonable - especially for the parts found on dry land.

BTW In case it isn't obvious, Rogan. When I talk about 'land finds' I mean the remains obviously dumped on land like the Whitehall leg and torso, the thigh of Elizabeth Jackson and the dissected portions of her torso in Battersea Park, not the remains washed up by the tides on sections of the Thames foreshores.

edit: sorry, I keep calling you Rogan rather than Joshua. Curry on the brain!

[Trevor Marriott]

Well John does have that technical knowledge thankfully, rather than just guessing.
The point was, the section of the Thames where Elizabeth's remains were dumped was tidal and police thought, going by the places the various parts ended up along the Thames, that they had been thrown from one place. John's calculations show this was highly plausible.
The Thames at Reading is not tidal and so nothing can be carried off with the tide for any significant stretch of the river, so the analogy with where Dyer's poor little victims were found is totally irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant parcels were thrown in the river clearly they moved with the flow otherwise they would have all been found in close proximity to each other, Of course that also would depend on where they were deposited in the firs instance. But clearly they were not discovered until after her arrest for the one which was discovered causing the police to make a search of the river as to how far that search extended i do not know.

But I live right by a river which is not tidal, and I can tell you that you only have to watch debris move along with the flow to see how quick things can be carried along with just a flow. Especially after heavy rain when the flow increases.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Why is it irrelevant parcels were thrown in the river clearly they moved with the flow otherwise they would have all been found in close proximity to each other, Of course that also would depend on where they were deposited in the firs instance. But clearly they were not discovered until after her arrest for the one which was discovered causing the police to make a search of the river as to how far that search extended i do not know.

But I live right by a river which is not tidal, and I can tell you that you only have to watch debris move along with the flow to see how quick things can be carried along with just a flow. Especially after heavy rain when the flow increases.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Didn't you say earlier that all Dyer's victims were found close to each other. I'm confused as to what your actual objection is against John's John's tidal research calculations or what you are oposing here.

If you say debris gets carried with normal river flow, why are you arguing against remains being carried off by the tides? It makes perfect sense.
What is your actual argument here?

[Debra A]

...Body parts and bodies were quiet common to be fished out of the thames. It should also be noticed that some of the body parts etc were found many miles down the thames. Now i know some will say that this was due to the tides, But being realistic if you are going to try to dispose of a torso, are you not going to try to ensure it is perhaps weighted down to avoid it simply floating around where you throw it in?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Whatever the cause of death of these women, it was most likely through a criminal offence, hence the need to dump the body, so why didn't the anatomist, workhouse organ stealer, abortionist or wife killer weight the remains to hide their crime in the same way you are expecting a serial killer to have done?

[John G]

Whatever the cause of death of these women, it was most likely through a criminal offence, hence the need to dump the body, so why didn't the anatomist, workhouse organ stealer, abortionist or wife killer weight the remains to hide their crime in the same way you are expecting a serial killer to have done?

Hi Debra,

Sorry to interject, but why would a serial killer necessarily weight the remains? I mean, allowing the remains to float would surely be consistent with trying to create a sense of shock value, like placing a torso between sleeping drunks or in a police building for example! I dont say that's what happened, but it would be a consistent approach.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Sorry to interject, but why would a serial killer necessarily weight the remains? I mean, allowing the remains to float would surely be consistent with trying to create a sense of shock value, like placing a torso between sleeping drunks or in a police building for example! I dont say that's what happened, but it would be a consistent approach.

Ask Trevor, John! I quoted his earlier sentence:

"But being realistic if you are going to try to dispose of a torso, are you not going to try to ensure it is perhaps weighted down to avoid it simply floating around where you throw it in? "

I was asking why he expects a serial killer or murderer would weight down remains but nobody else, ie, any of the other would be dumpers who must have committed a criminal offence if not murder -someone dumped those remains illegally!

[John G]

Ask Trevor, John! I quoted his earlier sentence:

"But being realistic if you are going to try to dispose of a torso, are you not going to try to ensure it is perhaps weighted down to avoid it simply floating around where you throw it in? "

I was asking why he expects a serial killer or murderer would weight down remains but nobody else, ie, any of the other would be dumpers who must have committed a criminal offence if not murder -someone dumped those remains illegally!

Thanks, Debra, I obviously disagree with Trevor on this one! I think allowing the body parts to float are clearly consistent with a serial killer trying to instill a sense of shock value.

[Ben]

Of course, it could be strongly argued that a more organised killer would have expanded his range, especially with a massively increased police presence in Whitechapel and a public on high alert. Nor can it be satisfactorily argued that he was hampered by lack of transport

Hi John,

I just wrote a long post, which for some reason disappeared, very annoyingly.

Just the condensed version, then, and suffice to say I disagree.

If the killer lived centrally to his crimes, he would have been branching outwards after each murder and thus taking the heat off the immediate vicinity of the previous crime. It would make him a "marauder" type of offender; not generally considered disorganised, and much more prevalent that their "commuter" counterparts.

All the best,
Ben

[RockySullivan]

Thanks, Debra, I obviously disagree with Trevor on this one! I think allowing the body parts to float are clearly consistent with a serial killer trying to instill a sense of shock value.

If the killer was carrying the parts, one witness sighting was of a man with a foul smelling bundle riding the train (just an example), it would probably be a lot harder to carry weights heavy enough to keep the bodies down. But we don't know how the killer transported the parts to the river.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Pierre,

I know exactly who you're talking about, and yes, I too..along with a group of 27 others have come to the same conclusion about who we believe JTR was. And it's the one you are also onto for sure. We also were dismayed and didn't want it to be that man who is not actually named Jack. It is odd that such a well-known (in Victorian times) person hadn't been considered seriously before we found him, but without the recent evidence, he would have dwelt in obscurity. Thank heaven for good newspaper archives and the Old Bailey, eh?
The only question I (we) have remaining is why someone who was so famous for that thing he did that made him famous, would have been interested in killing so many women in London. What was his motive? Well, we sort of know that answer, but haven't found the absolute proof yet. Perhaps if we compared notes?

Yours,

Mike

[Pierre]

Dismemberments?

Cautious? Why should he become cautious with only one victim? Then proceed to be anything but a mere half hour later with Catharine Eddowes? Why did he need to exercise caution with Elisabeth Stride in particular?

Jack the Ripper meeting Eddowes:

"Well good evening! Will you come with me? Please do not take any notice of the blood and gore on my clothes or hands. I wonīt cause you any harm. I am not who you might think I am. Please donīt alert the police!"

The double event was planned. Why was it so important for him to make it a double event?

Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,
Congratulations on your discovery and good luck with the continuing research. As for never having been a Ripperologist before, don't feel alone. The subject sucks you in like quicksand. I perfectly understand you don't want to disclose your hypothesis. Since you are new to Ripperology, I suggest you affiliate with one of the more established and knowledgable persons in the field. He or she can provide extensive background and, possibly, financial assistance in tracing and supporting the evidence you have found as well as providing context from his wealth of information. This subject is like an amoeba. It just keeps growing on its own but if you can truly solve the case you will be a hero and a celebrity. Godspeed in your quest.

Well, thanks, but I donīt want to become a "celebrity". I want to serve science only. If I have evidence then it is all thanks to science and not to me.
Pierre