I think I have found him.

[caz]

Don't you think it's a bit silly for someone to say I've solved the JTR case but won't say a word about it and having so many members coming up with some 16 pages of comments that actually don't mean a thing since they're essentially repeting what they may have said before to everybody!!!

I'm only up to this post of yours on page 16, Monsieur Poirot, but I have to agree with you.

I'm not sure what is sillier - a new poster claiming to have (almost) solved the case and hoping for a positive reaction around here, or a whole host of seasoned posters with the time and the will to turn the thread into an adolescent pie-throwing contest, and themselves into adolescent pie throwers.

At least when many of us chuck our pies at the Crossmere theory, it is one that has been aired to buggery and back, and only gets more deserving of those pies the deeper the arguments are explored. This theory hasn't even been aired yet (as at page 16), and it is already being pelted with soggy pastry from all sides.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Now of course if he told us anything at all he might get a different response but his rubbish about Stride's killer being covered in blood and gore show just how much he knows, but if he isn't even aware that her killer MAY have walked away with little or no blood on him, how can he possible have solved anything.

Hi Gut,

You are a lawyer, I believe? Language and comprehension must be crucial in your line of work.

Well maybe I'm the one who read Pierre all wrong here, but to me his point seemed to be that the ripper wasn't interrupted when killing Stride; he was being cautious by only slitting her throat this time because the double event was planned and he could hardly have gone on to commit the second murder shortly afterwards if he was covered in blood and gore when trying to lure Eddowes into a suitably dark spot. I took Pierre's little bit of dialogue to be ironic, which made perfect sense to me in the context. Read it again and see what I'm getting at:

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 won´t cause you any harm. I am not who you might think I am. Please don´t alert the police!"

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

Pierre

Do you really imagine Pierre was arguing that Eddowes went meekly off to her doom, reassured by a man who was covered in blood and gore?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Gut,

You are a lawyer, I believe? Language and comprehension must be crucial in your line of work.

Well maybe I'm the one who read Pierre all wrong here, but to me his point seemed to be that the ripper wasn't interrupted when killing Stride; he was being cautious by only slitting her throat this time because the double event was planned and he could hardly have gone on to commit the second murder shortly afterwards if he was covered in blood and gore when trying to lure Eddowes into a suitably dark spot. I took Pierre's little bit of dialogue to be ironic, which made perfect sense to me in the context. Read it again and see what I'm getting at:



Do you really imagine Pierre was arguing that Eddowes went meekly off to her doom, reassured by a man who was covered in blood and gore?

Love,

Caz
X

wow!double event planned?
losing sleep.

[caz]

I suspect Pierre is not showing a lack of knowledge, but hinting that this is the conversation that would have had to take place, if he hadn't 'taken care' with Stride - that, knowing he had two murders to commit, he didn't risk getting messy during the first one.

Exactly what I suspected, Joshua, when I first read that conversation!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

wow!double event planned?
losing sleep.

Just to clarify, it's Pierre's idea, not mine. And it's not a new one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You don´t seem to understand the ironical text I wrote so I will explain it to you. If this serial killer had met his next victim with blood and gore on him, it would have been impossible for him to murder her.

As I said, he planned the double event. And he could not bring souvenirs from Stride with him to the next victim. If he could have done so and gotten away with it, he surely would have.

Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Ah, just as I thought. Some people see but do not observe. (Up to page 20 now).

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Just to clarify, it's Pierre's idea, not mine. And it's not a new one.

Love,

Caz
X

yes and yes. I know.

[caz]

No .That won't do Pierre. As I said in my post which you chose to ignore, he had time to clean up and deposit any trophies he may have take from Elisabeth Stride. This would not have taken very long. On the other hand he could have had with him a small bag in which he could easily have kept any trophies. For me your theory falls down here. Also you did not elaborate on why the Double Event was of such importance.

Hi Belinda,

You can't say the theory itself 'falls down' over this, as you have no idea if Stride's killer would have chosen to risk removing organs in that busy location (we know he didn't), only to have to find somewhere safe and private (do you have somewhere in mind?) to clean up and deposit them, or at least to clean up and take them with him, before he could go out and find another victim.

We know the killer didn't remove anything from Stride's body, and we can also be fairly sure that if the same man went on to kill Eddowes he couldn't have hoped to get anywhere if he had obvious signs of a recent bloody encounter on his person.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

To Belinda : Maybe the Double Event was planned to ramp up the terrorism effect... IF the murders were intended as terrorist events, of course.

[John G]

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.

Hello Rocky,

Yes, to be fair this is a very good point, which demonstrates that we need to keep an open mind. For me, it's what makes the Torso and Whitechapel crimes so frustrating: the possibilities seem endless. However, I still think that if there was a single Torso killer then he must have been organised: he prevented nearly all of the victim's from being identified; it seems very unlikely that he was prepared to take the risk of murdering his victims in the open, I.e in the middle of the street (unlike the Whitechapel murderer), or at least there's no evidence of this; and he seems to have operated over a fairly wide .

This suggests to me that he would have probably taken the precaution of weighing down the bodies, unless he was trying to make a statement, I.e the motive was to create shock value. However, as you suggest, there may well have been practical considerations which prevented him from weighing down the bodies so nothing is certain.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Ah, just as I thought. Some people see but do not observe. (Up to page 20 now).

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz.

Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

If the killer was carrying the parts, one witness sighting was of a man with a foul smelling bundle riding the train

Are you sure that wasn't Jerome K Jerome with a large cheese?

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

You are a lawyer, I believe? Language and comprehension must be crucial in your line of work.

Well maybe I'm the one who read Pierre all wrong here, but to me his point seemed to be that the ripper wasn't interrupted when killing Stride; he was being cautious by only slitting her throat this time because the double event was planned and he could hardly have gone on to commit the second murder shortly afterwards if he was covered in blood and gore when trying to lure Eddowes into a suitably dark spot. I took Pierre's little bit of dialogue to be ironic, which made perfect sense to me in the context. Read it again and see what I'm getting at:



Do you really imagine Pierre was arguing that Eddowes went meekly off to her doom, reassured by a man who was covered in blood and gore?

Love,

Caz
X

I take him as saying something completely different ie that it was a "Rag Team" event.

But since he wants to online with his "I know something you don't na na na na na, " I'm not sure I care what he means this whole attitude of I know but aren't telling us plain ridiculous ans spells T.R.O.L.L.

If I'm wrong he can prove it be giving some (doesn't need to anywhere near all) facts. If he continues with his current BS this thread should go the way of Van Gogh and move to pub talk to fade into obscurity.

[Hercule Poirot]

Diversion

To Belinda : Maybe the Double Event was planned to ramp up the terrorism effect... IF the murders were intended as terrorist events, of course.

What if all the murders were part of a diversion measure that went really wrong?

[Shaggyrand]

A diversion from what? Now if you wanted to argue that someone went too far in outrageously highlighting how bad things were in the area, that might be an interesting theory to write a story on. But what could there be that would make butchering a group of hookers sounds like a reasonable plan? If it was a diversion that got out of hand, why didn't those behind it put down the one committing it after, say, the second murder or the double event? Kelly's murder is unlikely to be a diversion as it wasn't found until the following morning and probably attracted a hell of a crowd... Unless there was an epic convoy going by the other end of the street and everyone in London was crowding for a ghastly peek.