The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[GUT]

Pierre

You are so full of rubbish it's almost funny.

You said to Steve

The name of the person I think was the killer is not in the known sources, Steve.

But freely admit you don't read any ripper material, you have at different times shown a total lack of knowledge about central characters and yet say

The name of the person I think was the killer is not in the known sources, Steve.

How can you possibly know if their name is in any sources when you have never read them.

[Pierre]

Pierre

You are so full of rubbish it's almost funny.

You said to Steve

But freely admit you don't read any ripper material, you have at different times shown a total lack of knowledge about central characters and yet say

How can you possibly know if their name is in any sources when you have never read them.

Hi Gut,

At last a serious question from you!

With "known sources" I am talking about the historical sources from 1888-1889 concerning the murders.

Regards Pierre

[John G]

I have to say Pierre that I'm getting very confused by your "logic". Thus, you say "The name of the person I think was the killer is not in the known sources." However, you have revealed that your suspect was a "police officer". Therefore, how can the name of a police officer not be in the "known sources", even if you restrict this definition to mean the 1888-1889 "historical records."I mean, surely such information will be a matter of public record.

[Pierre]

I have to say Pierre that I'm getting very confused by your "logic". Thus, you say "The name of the person I think was the killer is not in the known sources." However, you have revealed that your suspect was a "police officer". Therefore, how can the name of a police officer not be in the "known sources"? Surely such information will be a matter of public record.

I see. But I did say the known sources concerning the murders, didn´t I?

Not the known sources containing information about all police officials in the UK.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

I see. But I did say the known sources concerning the murders, didn´t I?

Not the known sources containing information about all police officials in the UK.

Regards, Pierre

Okay, thanks for the clarification, although I was referring to your specific reply in Post 135. Incidentally, without conclusive DNA evidence, linking your suspect to all of the victims you ascribe to him, how can you possibly "know" that he was the killer? How is this logically possible?

[Rosemary]

Gut

I take offense to your comment regarding GUT, Pierre.
He's always serious, except when he's not.
Perhaps he's simply frustrated by your somewhat ephemeral posts, & I for one, as a trained ethno-historian of over 40 years, find your terminology & concepts regarding historical methods to be, well, odd.

[Pierre]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, although I was referring to your specific reply in Post 135. Incidentally, without conclusive DNA evidence, linking your suspect to all of the victims you ascribe to him, how can you possibly "know" that he was the killer? How is this logically possible?

I am sorry that I can´t tell you this now but I promise you will know if I am right.

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

A Bit More Confusion As to Your Point

Hi Pierre,

I have to admit I don't share your admiration for surgeons and hairdressers (I take you mean "professionals" in linking these two groups together) over hard working researchers whom you somewhat dismissively talk of writing research reports, articles, or books on serial killers. Plenty of surgeons are what are politely called "butchers" who manage to mangle or kill their patients, and even if they are stripped of their license move to another locale where they may still practice. Plenty of hairdressers are creatively warped, and ruin people appearances. I'll take even a wrong headed researcher or social history writer (within reason - that is if he or she are not writing criminal drivel for a totalitarian group, like Alfred Rosenberg for the Nazis or Dr. Lysencko regarding the dangers of Darwinian/Mendelian theories that did not gell with his views about Stalinistic Science), over one of the plenteous inept surgeons and hairdressers your comment can be read to sing the praises of.

I may also add there are plenty of researchers and writers in other fields besides criminal history, such as into medicine and proper surgical techniques. I am sure you would agree about them being beyond reproach - possibly because you would not consider them treating the subject as a "hobby", rather than what it is: trying to improve life expectancy and keeping up the standard of living life with dignity. By the way, there are also magazines for barbers and hairdressers discussing new styles, new products, and common problems.

But besides this, the following section of your response to Steve's comments hit me as ... odd?

Steve: "I have reached the point where I truly no longer care about the id of your suspect, and if you think he may have been the killer, then you suspect him so he is your suspect."

Pierre: "He is not "my suspect". He was a [Bowdlerized expletive! - but one that I agree with you, Pierre, is deserved] creep, who terrorized people, not only in Spitalsfield, and he wanted everyone to be scared of him. He also was very proud of what he did. Andf I have really found him, I am going to do what he would have wanted me to do: tell everyone his name"

I regret Pierre that one floored me - I'll explain why.

Yes, knowing the [Bowdlerized expletive] creep's name and revealing it - if correct and true - would certainly be emotionally satisfying to all of us. We'd know whom to loathe and hate finally. But it doesn't do a thing for five dead ladies (at least five dead ladies) horribly robbed of their lives and human dignity by the creep. He is beyond punishment now, unless he was superhuman (as Jack was in a Star Trek episode in the 1960s) or frozen by an early experiment in cryogenics. Since those are very unlikely, the creep has been pushing up daisies for some time.

I have been studying this case since I read Cullen's book in 1966 and I am aware of many if not all of the theories and pieces of research that have fleshed out characters. In particulars those ladies. I hate seeing the morgue pictures, and the three of Mary Kelly we have make me ill (they are frightening, and I have never seen human beings reduced to cut up beef anywhere else on film - including what I have seen of Nazi atrocity pictures).
Frankly, when a photo of poor Annie Chapman surfaced (it is shown on this website a bit), which shows her in an earlier, happier period of her life, I was really quite glad to see it. It restored Annie to some of the dignity she lost when that creep met her. Although I don't think Carrie "Old Shakespeare" Brown of New York City was a Ripper victim, I am glad a photo of that lady in a quiet moment has resurfaced too.

The point is I have always thought that all the research of this site and other sites, and all the books, should concentrate on honoring only those victims, and their sister victims. They should be the honored ones. And the titles of the subject and websites should stress the "Women of Whitechapel" or, if the murders should be necessary, "The Whitechapel Murders". But it is like spitting into the wind - the concentration is still on Jack. Again I understand the fascination about the historical riddle, but it seems "honoring him".

But now I am surprised to find, despite your claims of academic background and degrees, and scientific investigation back to original sources you may have the same tendency you previously denounced. Despite our shared revulsion at the killer, you would publish his identity if you were 100 % sure of it, knowing he'd want it to be know!!!

Congratulations! Up until now I was under the belief that the Ripper liked anonymity, but you feel he was a champion publicity hound. He could have solved all our problems surrendering to the authorities on November 9 or 10, 1888, with sufficient proofs that he was the killer, and ended his days smiling as he was sent to hell when the trap door of his gallows was opened by James Berry.

How you arrived at the twisted kind of reaction you felt about this creep I honestly can't figure out. And his background (as you gave it in the quote above) really floored me - congratulations on that one too!). He frightened people outside of Spitalsfield, and wanted everyone to be afraid of him.

Oddly enough I can think of one contemporary of the murders that fits that description - and he is a loathsome type. He destroyed the lives of two men, and may have wrecked a government of Great Britain in that time period. He also crossed swords with Tennyson over one of the latter's plays. He was an avid sportsman too, and his interest in sport is preserved to this day. And he ruined British drama, posing as a morality enforzer.

I won't say anymore about him - unfortunately I do not believe he was in the police of Great Britain, but I am not sure.

Jeff

[John G]

I am sorry that I can´t tell you this now but I promise you will know if I am right.

Regards Pierre

That depends. Your standard of proof might differ from mine.

[GUT]

I take offense to your comment regarding GUT, Pierre.
He's always serious, except when he's not.
Perhaps he's simply frustrated by your somewhat ephemeral posts, & I for one, as a trained ethno-historian of over 40 years, find your terminology & concepts regarding historical methods to be, well, odd.

G'day Rosemary

Thanks

But no need to take of fence on my behalf, better men than Pierre have tried to insult me, without much success.

And it's not just his terminology & concepts regarding historical methods I find odd, it's prett much everything he says.

I lay no claim to be an historian, but I live with one (one whose work is required wading at universities around the world) so I know a tad about the topic (in fact I typed up her PhD thesis) many of our friends are historians including Deans, retired Deans and Vice Chancellors of Universities.

My speciality on the other hand is looking for contradiction, illogical statements and inconsistencies and challenging them.

Unfortunately when it comes to Pierre there is really no challenge, they are everywhere

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I mean, Whitechapel borders the City of London. So inhabitants must know there are two distinct police forces.

If the police officer who killed Nichols is a Met police, fine. No problem. But how does he know the beats of the city police while killing Eddowes?

If the police officer who killed Nichols is a City police, then, surely Paul and Lechmere would have found it odd, or at least mention it somewhere.

Unless, and it's quite possible, both police uniforms were very similar and hard to differentiate in the dark. It might be worth it looking for differences and similarities in uniforms of the two forces.

That was my point.

Found this in another thread.

City carried rattles until the late 80s though not all the time. Some relied on the 'Hue and cry' system.

You've mentioned the major differences Martin.

Armlets were blue and white on Met side, red and white City. Helmets were cockcomb on the City side whereas the Met had the rose tops. Helmet plates on the Met helmets were dark brassed Brunswick star (the chrome coming into efect in the 1920s due to an accident in Brighton so legend has it) with Victoria's crown whereas City had the dark brass and gold copper City of London arms on their helmets.

The buttons on the City tunics had the City arms again, Met had the Victoria crown. The Met tunic had a special pocket for whistles whereas the City didn't.

Monty

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

I have to admit I don't share your admiration for surgeons and hairdressers (I take you mean "professionals" in linking these two groups together) over hard working researchers whom you somewhat dismissively talk of writing research reports, articles, or books on serial killers. Plenty of surgeons are what are politely called "butchers" who manage to mangle or kill their patients, and even if they are stripped of their license move to another locale where they may still practice. Plenty of hairdressers are creatively warped, and ruin people appearances. I'll take even a wrong headed researcher or social history writer (within reason - that is if he or she are not writing criminal drivel for a totalitarian group, like Alfred Rosenberg for the Nazis or Dr. Lysencko regarding the dangers of Darwinian/Mendelian theories that did not gell with his views about Stalinistic Science), over one of the plenteous inept surgeons and hairdressers your comment can be read to sing the praises of.

I may also add there are plenty of researchers and writers in other fields besides criminal history, such as into medicine and proper surgical techniques. I am sure you would agree about them being beyond reproach - possibly because you would not consider them treating the subject as a "hobby", rather than what it is: trying to improve life expectancy and keeping up the standard of living life with dignity. By the way, there are also magazines for barbers and hairdressers discussing new styles, new products, and common problems.

But besides this, the following section of your response to Steve's comments hit me as ... odd?

Steve: "I have reached the point where I truly no longer care about the id of your suspect, and if you think he may have been the killer, then you suspect him so he is your suspect."

Pierre: "He is not "my suspect". He was a [Bowdlerized expletive! - but one that I agree with you, Pierre, is deserved] creep, who terrorized people, not only in Spitalsfield, and he wanted everyone to be scared of him. He also was very proud of what he did. Andf I have really found him, I am going to do what he would have wanted me to do: tell everyone his name"

I regret Pierre that one floored me - I'll explain why.

Yes, knowing the [Bowdlerized expletive] creep's name and revealing it - if correct and true - would certainly be emotionally satisfying to all of us. We'd know whom to loathe and hate finally. But it doesn't do a thing for five dead ladies (at least five dead ladies) horribly robbed of their lives and human dignity by the creep. He is beyond punishment now, unless he was superhuman (as Jack was in a Star Trek episode in the 1960s) or frozen by an early experiment in cryogenics. Since those are very unlikely, the creep has been pushing up daisies for some time.

I have been studying this case since I read Cullen's book in 1966 and I am aware of many if not all of the theories and pieces of research that have fleshed out characters. In particulars those ladies. I hate seeing the morgue pictures, and the three of Mary Kelly we have make me ill (they are frightening, and I have never seen human beings reduced to cut up beef anywhere else on film - including what I have seen of Nazi atrocity pictures).
Frankly, when a photo of poor Annie Chapman surfaced (it is shown on this website a bit), which shows her in an earlier, happier period of her life, I was really quite glad to see it. It restored Annie to some of the dignity she lost when that creep met her. Although I don't think Carrie "Old Shakespeare" Brown of New York City was a Ripper victim, I am glad a photo of that lady in a quiet moment has resurfaced too.

The point is I have always thought that all the research of this site and other sites, and all the books, should concentrate on honoring only those victims, and their sister victims. They should be the honored ones. And the titles of the subject and websites should stress the "Women of Whitechapel" or, if the murders should be necessary, "The Whitechapel Murders". But it is like spitting into the wind - the concentration is still on Jack. Again I understand the fascination about the historical riddle, but it seems "honoring him".

Very good thinking, I agree. And if I have found him, when I am finished with him, everyone will know who this scumbag was. And they will know why he was never caught. And this will be known to honour the victims and no one else.

But now I am surprised to find, despite your claims of academic background and degrees, and scientific investigation back to original sources you may have the same tendency you previously denounced. Despite our shared revulsion at the killer, you would publish his identity if you were 100 % sure of it, knowing he'd want it to be know!!!

Congratulations! Up until now I was under the belief that the Ripper liked anonymity, but you feel he was a champion publicity hound. He could have solved all our problems surrendering to the authorities on November 9 or 10, 1888, with sufficient proofs that he was the killer, and ended his days smiling as he was sent to hell when the trap door of his gallows was opened by James Berry.

He knew that he would with a very high probability not be punished for his crimes. He did not only terrorize the poor women in Spitalfields and in the West End but he terrorized the police as well. He was a hot potato. And he enjoyed this. People like him eliminates the functioning of the justice system. He is worse than this one from that perspective: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...killer-5866206

How you arrived at the twisted kind of reaction you felt about this creep I honestly can't figure out. And his background (as you gave it in the quote above) really floored me - congratulations on that one too!). He frightened people outside of Spitalsfield, and wanted everyone to be afraid of him.

Sure, and I think he had a grandiose ego and an unrealistic sense of superiority that sadly enough became realistic. But that does not mean he was right. He was wrong, he was a killer and even if he thought he was right and wanted everyone to know who he was, we know he was a simple criminal and this must be known.

Oddly enough I can think of one contemporary of the murders that fits that description - and he is a loathsome type. He destroyed the lives of two men, and may have wrecked a government of Great Britain in that time period. He also crossed swords with Tennyson over one of the latter's plays. He was an avid sportsman too, and his interest in sport is preserved to this day. And he ruined British drama, posing as a morality enforzer.

I won't say anymore about him - unfortunately I do not believe he was in the police of Great Britain, but I am not sure.

Jeff

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

all I am asking is that you admit to yourself that you mislead people here, it may not have been for a bad reason, but you did make a statement which was not true, and you knew it not to have been so. (that is saying "it was not a Scotland Yard official")

If when I first raised this you had just said "yes I am sorry but I felt I had to", I may not have agreed with you but, I would not have lost respect for you.

However you posted you had "not mislead anyone", if you want me to quote the post I will, but surely that is unnecessary.

You are wrong about your research, it has been responsible for some very good work on the plans for Millers Court, I know you may not agree with them, never the less the work may not have been done without your theory in the first place.

By not reading anything, but Sugden, you are limiting yourself, there are good non suspect books out there.
Books by Paul Begg are neutral, and full of much good research.
The ultimate Jack the Ripper source book by Evans and Skinner for one in many areas is far superior to the newspaper archives which although classed as primary source, are not without bias themselves.
Just reading a section of papers from the days after 9th November, there is hardly one report which agrees with another. The thing which I am sure you are aware of is that this was the start of tabloid journalism. sensational headlines. Truth came second to selling most copies, the same is true now.

you are wrong about what is important to the forum as well.
What is important is :

1. Good research, research that can be tested:

I think it is true, that while alot of people do not accept Kosminski as a suspect they do respect the book by Rob House, because even if they disagree with his conclusion, they accept that the research is honest, and in some areas actually outstanding.

2.Honesty and credibility.

3.Humility, some people I know have left this site due to the attitude of others.

Again reading what you say:

"but I also trust that you take an interest in Jack the Ripper as a hobby, since that is what you have told me."

That comes across as its a bad thing. you have hinted at this before, actually more than hinted! why?
its something I have a deep interest in, I do not do it as a form of employment so it is a hobby, the same is true for me with Local Government and politics and my first academic love Egyptology, I class them all as hobbies maybe you put a different interpretation on the word hobby.


Pierre you are missing the point here:

"I trust social researchers and historians to be the most reliable persons for writing research reports, articles or books on serial killers.But I don´t trust them to be good surgeons. Or hairdressers. Perhaps that is an elitist attitude."

Of course you don’t want an historian to do surgery unless they are able to;
but there is such a thing as learning on the job, this can lead to a vast range of occupational and vocational qualifications.

Lets look at my old field of work. medical research. Whilst it is true the Heads of research groups will have doctorates, until recently it was common for the majority of the research technicians, the ones who actually do the day to day research but don't come up with the ideas,to be trained on the job.

It is less common, I know, in what I would term non science subjects such as history, sorry I see archaeology as a science, history as an art/not quite science. I do not mean to offend.
Many Ripperology writers do very little research themselves but pay professional researchers.

You do not seem to accept such training unless it has a university degree.
that is sad.
Again not knowing where you are I suppose it is possible that such does not exist there.

"I just stick to one concept to be as clear as possible" Sorry Pierre but that’s just what its not. about 2 days back didn't someone ask you if it was a police surgeon, it was obviously not clear to them.
do you see the terms as the same?

"He is not "my suspect". He was a f-g creep"

I agree whole heartedly with the second part of that. However, you believe he is the killer, so he is like it or not your suspect, especially as you say he is unknown as one before.
You obviously don't like the term for some personal reason, does it make you feel attached, not in a god way or something?. i personally don't see a problem, you do. so i shan’t call him "your suspect" even if he is.

we end up where we started, you are still saying "you didn't mislead" I am fully prepared to accept that you believe that
my dear Pierre not being mean but just look at the evidence.

you said the person was not a police official, but you knew he was.

what else is that but misleading.

anyway that me done for today

[Pierre]

Steve, I will get back to your thread tomorrow.

Regards Pierre

[Garry Wroe]

Wickerman dealt with this chevron nonsense in his first post on this thread, Pierre. If you are the serious historical researcher you claim to be, why don't you take notice of people who have greater knowledge of the subject than you
?

Jon offered an opinion, Colin, not proof. Collateral damage does not explain the inverted 'Vs' to both cheeks, both at the same height on the face. Nor does it explain why those who saw the body referred to 'Vs' rather than 'Us'. And what about the delicate perpendicular nicks beneath the eyes? Were these collateral too? I think not. To my mind the killer, as many of his like have done over the intervening years, felt the need to adorn the body with the kind of symbolic wounds which had meaning to him, even if that meaning remains obscure to us.