I think I have found him.

[RockySullivan]

Rocky

Take the blinkers off re vist the evidence. There is no evidence to support a murder suggestion in the majority of the torsos. So why is it right to assume they were murdered?

What statement is it you refer to in your previous post ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Everyone wants to pick and choose when the Doctors are reliable and when they aren't according to how it works into the theory they are selling. The Pinchin Torso victim was murdered by having her throat slit and she died from the blood loss...according to the I've read. When you look at the way the torso's were dumped, dismembered and especially the way they were packaged it's clearly the work of the same individual or group of people. Why would the pinchin victim be murdered and the rest not?

[Fisherman]

Everyone wants to pick and choose when the Doctors are reliable and when they aren't according to how it works into the theory they are selling.

Never was a truer word spoken!

[Trevor Marriott]

Everyone wants to pick and choose when the Doctors are reliable and when they aren't according to how it works into the theory they are selling. The Pinchin Torso victim was murdered by having her throat slit and she died from the blood loss...according to the I've read. When you look at the way the torso's were dumped, dismembered and especially the way they were packaged it's clearly the work of the same individual or group of people. Why would the pinchin victim be murdered and the rest not?

I think you need to re vist all the evidence regarding the Pinchin St Torso.

You cannot say that all the torsos were murdered, and you cannot say that one person or one gang was responsible that is pure conjecture on your part.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Never was a truer word spoken!

Yes but trying to get to the truth it isn't help by the interference of self proclaimed armchair forensic pathologists.

[John G]

Yes but trying to get to the truth it isn't help by the interference of self proclaimed armchair forensic pathologists.

Yes, it's amazing how many "world-class" medical and forensic experts we have contributing to these threads! In fact you don't even seem to need any qualifications or experience in the relevant area theses days-I bet Dr Biggs is wondering why he bothered qualifying!

[John G]

Everyone wants to pick and choose when the Doctors are reliable and when they aren't according to how it works into the theory they are selling. The Pinchin Torso victim was murdered by having her throat slit and she died from the blood loss...according to the I've read. When you look at the way the torso's were dumped, dismembered and especially the way they were packaged it's clearly the work of the same individual or group of people. Why would the pinchin victim be murdered and the rest not?

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.

In fact, I'm quite impressed with Professor David Wilson's [he is a renowned criminologist, and therefore an expert] view that the Whitechapel murderer was a disorganized killer, I.e because all of the crimes took place within an incredibly small geographical area: an organized killer would surely have expanded his range, particularly when Whitechapel became a "hot potato", with a dramatically increased police presence and the public on high alert. And that, of course, is exactly what Peter Sutcliffe did.

Nor can you argue that he didn't have transport, as it would only take a relatively short walk to be in an adjacent borough, and one with a smaller police presence and a less wary public. And, of course, locals were much more used to walking long distances in Victorian England-George Hutchinson claimed to have walked all the way from Romford.

On the other hand, if there was a single Torso perpetrator he was clearly far more organized, at least in this respect, as body parts were deposited all over London and he successfully masked the identity of all but one victim.

[Fisherman]

Yes, it's amazing how many "world-class" medical and forensic experts we have contributing to these threads! In fact you don't even seem to need any qualifications or experience in the relevant area theses days-I bet Dr Biggs is wondering why he bothered qualifying!

There are a number of "world class critics" out here too, letīs not forget that. One of them has taken it upon himself to speak of me as a "self proclaimed armchair forensic pathologists", while in fact my suggestions are grounded on the views of Jason Payne-James, who has a longer list of credentials than the poster in question has of intellectual debacles. Meaning that Payne-James is incredibly well suited to comment on forensic pathology matters.

[John G]

There are a number of "world class critics" out here too, letīs not forget that. One of them has taken it upon himself to speak of me as a "self proclaimed armchair forensic pathologists", while in fact my suggestions are grounded on the views of Jason Payne-James, who has a longer list of credentials than the poster in question has of intellectual debacles. Meaning that Payne-James is incredibly well suited to comment on forensic pathology matters.

Hello Fisherman,

Although we sometimes disagree, I acknowledge that you are without doubt an extremely knowledgeable and experienced Ripperologist and your opinions, like Trevor's should, in my view, be treated with the utmost respect.

Of course, even renowned writers on the subject Sometimes, wisely, consult the opinion of experts. The difficulty is that even these experts often disagree, which in fact is the case with some of the experts Trevor consulted. Nonetheless, I would personally give precedence to the view of a modern day forensic pathologist than, say, a Victorian GP.

I must admit that I'm not familiar with Payne-James, or his opinions, but would be very interested in consulting his views. Clearly an objective approach involves considering a wide-range of opinion before anything like definitive conclusions are possible.

[lynn cates]

again

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

[curious]

So, Pierre....if you are not prepared to give detail, why post about it? Why not post some of what you found without giving a name? I think you'll find some valuable resources here. One guy, for instance, recently saw his theory, thirty years of work, the subject of a 'world wide sent documentary'....flushed right down the ye olde turd box....thanks to the analysis provide here! Not that we'd want to torpedo your work. Not at all. But, you may be able to get some clarification or get some measure of confidence in what you have uncovered.

But if you tell me that it's a painter, an author, an actor, or a carman....I'm coming to your house.

Oh, dear. I've been away and missed something important. Patrick, would you please tell me which threads I need to read to catch up?

thanks,

curious

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

Although we sometimes disagree, I acknowledge that you are without doubt an extremely knowledgeable and experienced Ripperologist and your opinions, like Trevor's should, in my view, be treated with the utmost respect.

Of course, even renowned writers on the subject Sometimes, wisely, consult the opinion of experts. The difficulty is that even these experts often disagree, which in fact is the case with some of the experts Trevor consulted. Nonetheless, I would personally give precedence to the view of a modern day forensic pathologist than, say, a Victorian GP.

I must admit that I'm not familiar with Payne-James, or his opinions, but would be very interested in consulting his views. Clearly an objective approach involves considering a wide-range of opinion before anything like definitive conclusions are possible.

If you want to see who Jason Payne-James is as familiarize yourself with his credentials, you can take a look at www.payne-james.co.uk where there is a good listing.

I donīt know anything about Dr Briggs or Biggs or whatever it is, credentials, but he makes a world of sense to me. However, he will repeatedly avoid commenting specifically on the Nichols case and instead opt for making general comments. Which is good and useful - as long as we donīt try to fit general information onto the Nichols case.

For example, there was one time when B(r)iggs said that people can live for hours with fairly extensive damage to the neck.

Fair enough, and I donīt doubt it. But when somebody who cannot tell the difference between case-specific and general starts to think that Nichols could have survived for hours, it becomes silly. It would have been totally impossible, since her body would be drained on blood in minutes, leaving her braindead within a very short period of time.

Having people who make that sort of mistake calling me a "self proclaimed armchair forensic pathologist" is simply pathetic.

Yes, todays doctors and pathologists are more skilled than their Victorian counterparts. But it is to little avail if we cannot understand what they say. And the Victorian doctors were very reliable in many respects - they would not fail to see the difference between a pen-knife blade and that of a sturdy dagger, for example, and they would not first say that the TOD would be at least two hours, only to then, in their next sentence, suggest that it could have been just the one hour.

Claiming that all they said was guesswork is ill-informed and very respectless. It does Ripperology no service.

[John G]

If you want to see who Jason Payne-James is as familiarize yourself with his credentials, you can take a look at www.payne-james.co.uk where there is a good listing.

I donīt know anything about Dr Briggs or Biggs or whatever it is, credentials, but he makes a world of sense to me. However, he will repeatedly avoid commenting specifically on the Nichols case and instead opt for making general comments. Which is good and useful - as long as we donīt try to fit general information onto the Nichols case.

For example, there was one time when B(r)iggs said that people can live for hours with fairly extensive damage to the neck.

Fair enough, and I donīt doubt it. But when somebody who cannot tell the difference between case-specific and general starts to think that Nichols could have survived for hours, it becomes silly. It would have been totally impossible, since her body would be drained on blood in minutes, leaving her braindead within a very short period of time.

Having people who make that sort of mistake calling me a "self proclaimed armchair forensic pathologist" is simply pathetic.

Yes, todays doctors and pathologists are more skilled than their Victorian counterparts. But it is to little avail if we cannot understand what they say. And the Victorian doctors were very reliable in many respects - they would not fail to see the difference between a pen-knife blade and that of a sturdy dagger, for example, and they would not first say that the TOD would be at least two hours, only to then, in their next sentence, suggest that it could have been just the one hour.

Claiming that all they said was guesswork is ill-informed and very respectless. It does Ripperology no service.

Thanks for the Payne-James link, Fish. Could you say how his opinions differ from, say, Dr Biggs? I take your point about Dr Biggs: he seemed to focus on what was possible, rather than expressing an opinion of what was probable. And, of course, as you imply he expressed only a medical opinion without also taking into consideration the wider attendant circumstances.

[Bridewell]

Take the blinkers off re-visit the evidence. There is no evidence to support a murder suggestion in the majority of the torsos. So why is it right to assume they were murdered?

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.

[Patrick S]

Oh, dear. I've been away and missed something important. Patrick, would you please tell me which threads I need to read to catch up?

thanks,

curious

For pure enertainment read "The Lechmere trail - so far". Thank me later.

[Bridewell]

My biggest problem right now is that I worry about revealing to the world who he was if the data turn out positive. Nobody will like the results. So I still hope I have the wrong suspect and that the data, if I find it, will be negative.

Pierre

Pierre,

Welcome to Casebook. You will have noted a certain amount of negativity in the various responses to your post. This is because any number of people have joined the forum claiming to have identified the killer. You have posted only in very general terms about the identity of the killer and the evidence you claim to have unearthed. You say that you have no real interest in the subject but that your man (assuming it's a he) is "not one of the known suspects". There have been more than 200 people put forward as being the Whitechapel Killer, many of them with little or no supporting evidence. You will need to post something specific to be taken seriously on this forum but, in the meantime, good luck with your research.