The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

..... Collateral damage does not explain the inverted 'Vs' to both cheeks, both at the same height on the face.

Dr Brown did not describe them as "inverted V's", the sliced tissue "which peeled up the skin" on both cheeks was triangular in shape.
No mention of "inverted V's".
The photograph shows the true shape of course, if you are more inclined to accept a crude sketch of a wound instead of a photograph, that's your choice.

And what about the delicate perpendicular nicks beneath the eyes?

An unsuccessful attempt to slice the eyes.
It seems our killer kept abreast of the investigation in the press.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi,

I think it is best if people donīt assume anything about his rank and where he worked. It may not be fruitful for the discussion, since it will lead to the wrong conclusions.

But as I understand it, chevrons were not part of general police uniform, merely insignia to denote the rank of the wearer. And they only feature on the insignia of sergeant, the three stripes shown in your original post. Thus, surely, rank is integral to your theory?

[GUT]

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.

And the words "to my mind" mean this is a fact???

Same old same old.

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your OP on this thread.

You had previously mentioned your suspect was not a Scotland Yard official - that is, Metropolitan Police Force.

Does that mean he was in the City of London Police force ?

You had also previously mentioned he was well educated, had anatomical knowledge (but not a doctor), lived at some stage in an expansive home such as the photo you uploaded, held a senior role (so am thinking he was not a Police Constable) and wanted to show the Police he was smarter than them.

I'm trying to understand his motivation. If he was a senior Police official, why would he want to embarrass his own force ?

Unless he held a senior role in the City of London Police force and was trying to embarrass the Metropolitan Police Force ?

Is this on the right track ? Appreciate any feedback

Craig

[MysterySinger]

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.

The symbols could be of compass or square and in that case the symbolism would be obvious. Note that the killer didn't mutilate Kelly's eyes for the all seeing eye too is symbolic. The fire in the grate - the quest for light (MJK), the symbolism of the piece of apron with the GSG, the murder at Buck's Row, the one at Dutfield's Yard - I don't assume that their locations were accidental. I offer these as possible pointers to those of you who like to keep an open mind. It's easy to look things up on the web.

[Pierre]

But as I understand it, chevrons were not part of general police uniform, merely insignia to denote the rank of the wearer. And they only feature on the insignia of sergeant, the three stripes shown in your original post. Thus, surely, rank is integral to your theory?

Hi Joshua,

I like this question.

My hypothesis is that the killer has used a known police symbol, whatever his own rank is.

I base that on the killers small possibility to communicate with the police using police symbols, since there are so few symbols to use which could give the police a clue to the killers profession.

There are more elaborate and advanced police symbols but they would be impossible to cut inte the victims face.

The chevron is simple.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

So what sort of idiot was JtR leaving all these obvious symbols around.

[MysterySinger]

So what sort of idiot was JtR leaving all these obvious symbols around.

The same sort of idiot who committed murder.

[MysterySinger]

......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.....
Jeff

Jeff - this is a great post and I love the underlying sentiment in it. If only there were more positives we could discover about their lives. Whatever else, I believe you really have to admire the survival instincts of these ladies.

[Mayerling]

Jeff - this is a great post and I love the underlying sentiment in it. If only there were more positives we could discover about their lives. Whatever else, I believe you really have to admire the survival instincts of these ladies.

Thank you Mystery, I still hold to my feeling that it is to those ladies that we owe them the right to be the honored ones, not the creep that horribly snuffed them. And yes, they did show the grim determination of human underdogs everywhere to survive no matter what it took.

Jeff

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your OP on this thread.

You had previously mentioned your suspect was not a Scotland Yard official - that is, Metropolitan Police Force.

Does that mean he was in the City of London Police force ?

You had also previously mentioned he was well educated, had anatomical knowledge (but not a doctor), lived at some stage in an expansive home such as the photo you uploaded, held a senior role (so am thinking he was not a Police Constable) and wanted to show the Police he was smarter than them.

I'm trying to understand his motivation. If he was a senior Police official, why would he want to embarrass his own force ?

Unless he held a senior role in the City of London Police force and was trying to embarrass the Metropolitan Police Force ?

Is this on the right track ? Appreciate any feedback

Craig

Hi Craig,

Everything I can confirm as being on the right track is marked in green. As always your thinking is clear and concise.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

The symbols could be of compass or square and in that case the symbolism would be obvious. Note that the killer didn't mutilate Kelly's eyes for the all seeing eye too is symbolic. The fire in the grate - the quest for light (MJK), the symbolism of the piece of apron with the GSG, the murder at Buck's Row, the one at Dutfield's Yard - I don't assume that their locations were accidental. I offer these as possible pointers to those of you who like to keep an open mind. It's easy to look things up on the web.

Hi MysterySinger,

Why donīt you believe that the locations of the murders in Buckīs Row and Dutfieldīs Yard were accidental?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

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")

Hi Steve. So the question was not about the police in general but it was about me saying that he was not a Scotland Yard official? Then I wonīt be able to answer the question, that is, if the question is "Was he 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.

You are truly warming my heart. But I discussed this issue only for the sake of the murder on Kelly. The descriptions about Kelly have been both romantic and wrong. She must have lived in hell on earth. But as you point out, I do not agree entirely with Richardhs work, i.e. the positioning of Kellyīs door in the wrong place. So the history about Kelly will go on being the wrong history, if he publishes that model and makes people think that is how it looked.

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.

OK, good to see you think there is serious literature. But I didnīt need it to read those to find him. I have analyzed old sources from the 1880s. So I am limiting myself, yes, and I do this intentionally. I donīt want my understanding contaminated.

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.

That will come automatically if I have found him and can proove it to you, but by then no one will care about my honesty and credibility.

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

For science I am flat on the ground.

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?

Because you try to discuss scientific questions while the case is only a hobby for you.

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.

I probably do and I am sorry if I misinterpret you.


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 donīt 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.

It is better to study at the university if you want to work scientifically. That is almost a truism I think.

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.

No problem. But if you think history is not science, then you canīt separate is from literature called "history" that is not scientific history, like ripperology (very often), and you can not understand the science of source criticism.

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.

I accept it. But it hasnīt found the killer yet.

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?

I use a wide concept, police official, since I do not want to be any more specific than this. I canīt give his rank yet.

"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.

Steve - suspects are criminals in police cases in our time. This is a cold case. So for me he is the person I think was the killer.

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.

No, but one has to use the correct concepts, otherwise we get sloppy thinking.

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.

No, the question was "Was he a Scotland Yard official" (right?) and I just wrote that I can not answer that question.

what else is that but misleading.

What else is this discussion but unnecessary?

anyway that me done for today

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

The military also used and still use chevrons, so I suppose Pierre your theory is that he was either a soldier sending hints to soldiers or a policeman sending hints to policemen?

[Elamarna]

a completely pointless reply.

Pierre

The reply you have given is completely pointless,
Your answers show either your lack of understanding of the English Language, which I doubt or a degree of arrogance that is unreal.

Let me look at your replies:

"Hi Steve. So the question was not about the police in general but it was about me saying that he was not a Scotland Yard official? Then I wonīt be able to answer the question, that is, if the question is "Was he a Scotland Yard official?".

It was not a question about that at all it was about you admitting that you mislead people. and your credibility, a subject you will not face up to.

Twice I mentioned this point it in my post and twice you gave the same answer.

"No, the question was "Was he a Scotland Yard official" (right?) and I just wrote that I can not answer that question."

No Pierre,that was not the question.
No one is asking you a question about this or that police officer.

You actually gave the question and answer your self in post 21 of this thread when you quote me and reply:

"1. I am sure that Pierre denied it was a police officer before.

Yes, I did. But I have changed my mind. The reason is that I donīt want to carry this alone anymore."


That is what this is about. YOU misleading this forum.

The fact that you play these games to not answer says so much about you!


Next point about sources and books:

"OK, good to see you think there is serious literature. But I didnīt need it to read those to find him. I have analyzed old sources from the 1880s. So I am limiting myself, yes, and I do this intentionally. I donīt want my understanding contaminated."

Contaminated? what a load of sanctimonious nonsense you do come out with!


Then another response about honesty and credibility:

"That will come automatically if I have found him and can proove it to you, but by then no one will care about my honesty and credibility."

Pierre can i ask, what do you actually research? the field I mean, not specific subjects.

Come on I worked in medical research for over 30 years, what about you?

I have never meet a researcher who takes less notice of credibility than you.


Then onto a subject i do not understand, call it your downer on many of those here:


"That comes across as its a bad thing. you have hinted at this before, actually more than hinted! why?"

Because you try to discuss scientific questions while the case is only a hobby for you."

What does that mean?


"what do you mean, only a hobby? "
"what do you understand by hobby?"
"as you have said you are doing this in your own time, what is that?"

"maybe you put a different interpretation on the word hobby."


I probably do and I am sorry if I misinterpret you.

You don't answer the questions, but again take a swipe at my use of the term hobby.
you obviously have a problem?


Then a view on your attitude to researchers


"It is better to study at the university if you want to work scientifically. That is almost a truism I think."

Not everybody has that opportunity, finances can make it all but impossible for some.
You are entitled to your opinion but it obviously belittles those who work many years, tirelessly and on often poor wages

"You do not seem to accept such training unless it has a university degree.
that is sad."

"I accept it. But it hasnīt found the killer yet."

That suggests that while you accept it you do not respect it or those who do not hold a Degree.


Your view on suspects and definitions for want of a better term

"Steve - suspects are criminals in police cases in our time. This is a cold case. So for me he is the person I think was the killer. "

Could you supply the source for this definition please. I give you TWO that disagree with you.

"A person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence" Oxford dictionaries

"A person who is believed to be possibly guilty of committing a crime" Merriam-Webster


"I use a wide concept, police official, since I do not want to be any more specific than this. I canīt give his rank yet."


The answer you give would suggest that you see official as covering a wider group. I was not asking about rank, only if you saw the two terms as covering the same groupings.


And finally

"what else is that but misleading.

What else is this discussion but unnecessary?"

Unfortunately it is not.
it is about you giving misleading information!