The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

The reason I suggested "V" meant "Victoria" was slightly facetious, but possibly understandable due to a bit of my own "hobble - dee horse" (and this does not make my interest in this case a hobby, please think of that).

If you are not aware of it, in December 1887 the magazine "Beeton's Christmas Annual" published a story that made literary history. It was "A Study in Scarlet" by Arthur Conan Doyle, and it introduced Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. I've been a lifelong Doyle fan, and so I have sometimes overdone my fascination of the Holmes stories. Still I feel they mirror the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods, and may have details buried in them that show Conan Doyle's lifetime interest in crime and detection. Conan Doyle was one of the founders of the "Our Society" a.k.a. the "Crime Club" in London which meets several times a year and discusses old cases. He also was friendly to some of the Scotland Yard detectives, like his predecessor Charles Dickens had been in the 1840s and 1850s.

Also, in line with the chronology I prepared of cases showing the Yard bungling investigations or having committed crimes before the Whitechapel Murders, Conan Doyle's novella of 1887 demonstrated Holmes' superiority as an investigator to Scotland Yard's abilities demonstrated by the two inspectors from the Yard who are considered the best of the lot - Lestrade and Gregson. Conan Doyle did not actually dismiss the abilities of the police, but he certainly found some of their actions questionable.

"A Study in Scarlet" was the first of a series of Holmes novellas/novels and short stories. In the end there were sixty of these. In one of them, in describing the rooms Holmes and he shared at 221 B Baker Street, Watson mentions how Holmes once took a gun and shot a "V" into the wall of their sitting room in a spirit of patriotism (i.e., for Queen Victoria). Hence my suggestion about the "V" cuts.

That was a really good and enjoying story! Thanks for sharing it!

And of course it makes a clear contrast to the egocentric killer in Mitre Square who was only thinking about his own superiority over all the others and knowing that the were looking for him in Whitechapel. Because that is the point in time where the contrast becomes clear: cutting the police chevron into the face of his second victim, not to celebrate the queen but to celebrate himself. No patriotic shooting of a V for Victoria in the sitting room with good friends. Just the killer, alone in the cold night in Mitre Square with a dead woman, destroying her face to show the world that the police are fools and he is superior.

By the way, years ago a member of this website, "Whypers", also discussed the cuts and mutilations as symbols by the killer - but he thought they showed a similarity to somebody who used similar designed shapes when doing tailoring.

I am glad that you found my chronology of interest.

I did. Thanks again.

Jeff

Regards Pierre

[John G]

Known to whom?

Regards Pierre

A customary Delphic response, Pierre...I like your style! As William Blake put it, "In the universe, there are things that are known, and things that are unknown, and in between, there are the doors." (Marriage of Heaven and Hell). Or, in the words of the well known orator, Donald Rumsfeld, "There are known knowns. These are things that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know that we don't know." Brilliantly perceptive, I'm sure you'll agree!

By the way, It's not Amos Simpson is it? Because, if memory serves, I'm pretty sure the illustrious Ripperologist, Russell Edwards, as definitively placed him in Mitre Square on the night of the Eddowes murder.

[Pierre]

Pierre,
going to answer what you asked, but got a few other question for you.

First, just want to be clear when you said:

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

Did you mean that you had changed your mind about the suspect, because that is how it reads and would make nonsense of your theory. Alternatively do you mean that you actually lied to us? are you saying he could be a police officer of any rank, when you specifically said not a Scotland Yard official.

I mean this: I have changed my mind about keeping quiet about the fact that I think he was a police official. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do remember you saying that you would always answer truthfully, unless you could not answer.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, AND I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING, BUT THAT IS ONE INTERPRETATION OF YOU POST.
IF YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD US, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU NOW?

I have not mislead anyone. Just kept quiet. But someone tried to imply he could have been a police official. And I did not want people to think that. But since I have changed my mind about being silent and am now telling the truth about the profession of the person I think was the killer, I am now also telling the truth about why I am telling the truth. As I hope you can see.

I am assuming that you can give a reasonable answer to that one.


I hope I could. If not, I will try again if you ask me.

now I am taking a response you gave to Pcdunn:

"And I have other data sources that identifies him. The testimony of Lechmere has had nothing to do with that during the time of my research. I found Lechmere´s testimony late in the research process and the theory was finished. "

I have underlined the part which is of interest, that reads that your research is over does it not??

The research leading to finding the killer is finished. Now remains finding one piece of data good enough to prove to you that this is him.

Surely that means you have no reason not to tell us the ID.

Of course there is a reason. Why be like the ripperologists, publishing fantasies? Making people disappointed? Like Russell Edwards for example. Why not have the perfect evidence before you reveal your "suspect"? I am not going to do that.

"The confession give things that only this police official could have known"

Such as? it must be possible to give something without giving away the ID.
In reality there are few things only a killer would know, that were not in the public domain. but you say only this officer?

No comment.

if it is so concrete as only one could know the details, you have a positive result, you could post the ID.

I didn´t know that you were so eager to know his ID. It must be more important to know that I am right.

And again:
"Steve, at this moment I can only refer to sources which do not give his ID. ."

yet in your post to Pcdunn you speak of your research in the past tense, when you say:
" I found Lechmere´s testimony late in the research process and the theory was finished. " you actually say the theory is finished.
Or am I misunderstanding you?


Steve, the research process for finding him is finished. The research process for finding out about details in his life could very well continue. There must be a lot of knowledge to obtain about this person.

Now to answer the question you asked me.

If he was a senior high ranking officer they may have hushed the case up, due to the scandal,but still feel the killer would have been locked away, it was easy to lock people in an asylum in those days. there are examples of persons with connections to The Royal Family where this happened

OK. Agree on this on the whole.

If low rank, have no doubt they would have had the man incarcerated.

I am confused of course because i am not sure what you meant by saying
" But I have changed my mind" as discussed at the start of my post.



I have several other questions,

You have made it clear I think that you believe the killer did the writing on the wall. what do you think he is saying?

Steve, I am truly sorry but I can´t tell you.

On the night of the bucks row murder, there are i believe 3 officers with excuses for being there plus mizen arriving later, surely you must be suggesting one of them? or is it someone else?

It was none of the officers there.

Finally, going back to the "V's" on the cheek.

From what i can see, I may be wrong, the only police officers who could have seen your suggestion as being real would have been those involved with the rank of sergeant. Either someone not promoted to or from. even then it is an incredible stretch of reality to think that those investigating would understand this.


Yes, it might be so. But he did not want to be caught.

have a good Christmas day

The same to you Steve!

[GUT]

No Brenda. I don´t know anything about Cutbush.

Interesting. I wonder why this AP Wolf thought it was a policeman. I shall look into it if I find it.

Regards Pierre

More proof of the depth of Pierre's research, he knows nothing about Cutbush the cause of one of the most important documents in the case (that has survived) and seems to ave no idea who AP is?

What as he read?


Nothing it seems.

[Pierre]

More proof of the depth of Pierre's research, he knows nothing about Cutbush the cause of one of the most important documents in the case (that has survived) and seems to ave no idea who AP is?

What as he read?

Nothing it seems.

You are almost spot on. I have read almost nothing within ripperology. Why should I when nothing of everything that has been written has solved the case?

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

We seem to be making some headway

"I have not mislead anyone. Just kept quiet. But someone tried to imply he could have been a police official. And I did not want people to think that. But since I have changed my mind about being silent and am now telling the truth about the profession of the person I think was the killer, I am now also telling the truth about why I am telling the truth. As I hope you can see."

Pierre, I can understand your thinking, but that is not strictly true is it.
You did not just keep quiet about it being the police, if you had said I cannot say or no comment I would agree.

However you did actually say

"Well, the person I have found wasn´t a Scotland Yard official"

How is that not misleading?
It is not the truth!
You positively denied it was a police officer! therefore it is misleading?

I think with all due respect you will have to concede that.


With regards to the research and its status i was only asking because you were giving the impression it was finished by the words you wrote. You have clarified the situation and that is ok

Asking for a reason not to give the ID was because I was not clear from reading your posts, what the status of your work was, you have now made it clear.

With regards to the confession you give a clear "no comment" see not hint of misleading at all

Good to see we basically agree on what we think the police would do


shame you won't talk about the writing, but such is your right. no problem. sure you understand why I am asking?
Personally until someone provides evidence to the contrary, my view is that it had nothing to do with the murders and was purely coincidental.

You are saying none of the officers there was the killer, that’s a step forward, I was fairly sure you would say that, if you did answer.

now i lose you a bit


"Yes, it might be so. But he did not want to be caught".

If he didn't want to be caught why leave the "clues" as you see them?
With regards to the cuts on the face I find your view on that a non starter.

You do say it is not part of your cases I think you are right to say that.

[Elamarna]

You are almost spot on. I have read almost nothing within ripperology. Why should I when nothing of everything that has been written has solved the case?

Regards Pierre

my friend this is why you get the response you do. your reply is highly arrogant.

[Pierre]

my friend this is why you get the response you do. your reply is highly arrogant.

But isn´t it true Steve?

[Pierre]

Pierre

We seem to be making some headway

"I have not mislead anyone. Just kept quiet. But someone tried to imply he could have been a police official. And I did not want people to think that. But since I have changed my mind about being silent and am now telling the truth about the profession of the person I think was the killer, I am now also telling the truth about why I am telling the truth. As I hope you can see."

Pierre, I can understand your thinking, but that is not strictly true is it.
You did not just keep quiet about it being the police, if you had said I cannot say or no comment I would agree.

However you did actually say

"Well, the person I have found wasn´t a Scotland Yard official"

How is that not misleading?
It is not the truth!
You positively denied it was a police officer! therefore it is misleading?

I think with all due respect you will have to concede that.

Steve, why is it important? I had no intention to mislead or lead anyone anywhere. Just to keep quiet of the fact that I think he was a police official. So I had to deny that. I did not want to discuss this. Now, on the other hand, I am read to do that. Within limits.

With regards to the research and its status i was only asking because you were giving the impression it was finished by the words you wrote. You have clarified the situation and that is ok

Asking for a reason not to give the ID was because I was not clear from reading your posts, what the status of your work was, you have now made it clear.

With regards to the confession you give a clear "no comment" see not hint of misleading at all

Good to see we basically agree on what we think the police would do


shame you won't talk about the writing, but such is your right. no problem. sure you understand why I am asking?
Personally until someone provides evidence to the contrary, my view is that it had nothing to do with the murders and was purely coincidental.

I think that is an intelligent position. I don´t want to present a garbage-in-garbage-out theory to people. If my theory turns up to be such a theory, you will not be disappointed since you have been neutral.

You are saying none of the officers there was the killer, that’s a step forward, I was fairly sure you would say that, if you did answer.

now i lose you a bit


"Yes, it might be so. But he did not want to be caught".

If he didn't want to be caught why leave the "clues" as you see them?
With regards to the cuts on the face I find your view on that a non starter.

This is a very good question. Why do serial killers leave clues, Steve? For instance, the BTK killer sent the police a floppy disk. Stupid of him. The police decoded it and went straight ahead and arrested him.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...ps_caught_btk/

But the BTK killer was no policeman. A policeman has a better chance to get away, and so he can taunt the police in a more advanced way. So leaving clues is part of the game. It makes the serial killer feel superior. He is the one calling the shots. Not the police. And if he is a policeman himself, you can imagine what advantages he had.

Just have a look at this serial killer who is a former policeman:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...killer-5866206

You do say it is not part of your cases I think you are right to say that.

Thanks Steve.

Regards Pierre

[John G]

Hello! If you deny something you know to be true, I.e. you believe the killer is a police officer, but then deny it, there is a clear intention to mislead. That is an empirical fact; no other conclusion is logically possible:

Mislead: verb (past and past participle mislead)

Cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary.

By the way, is it just me or is this thread starting to take on a surreal quality?

[Fisherman]

Truth?

Any close up of the face effectively dismisses the belief that those slices look anything like chevrons.

Partyspoiler!

[GUT]

Hello! If you deny something you know to be true, I.e. you believe the killer is a police officer, but then deny it, there is a clear intention to mislead. That is an empirical fact; no other conclusion is logically possible:

Mislead: verb (past and past participle mislead)

Cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary.

By the way, is it just me or is this thread starting to take on a surreal quality?

Starting???

[Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Fisherman:
I could, specifically, comment on your theory from one aspect, of course - you suggest that there was another man in Bucks Row WITH Charles Lechmere, who was the actual killer.

My answer to that particular passus is that the existance of this suspect is uncorroborated in the sources.

No it isn´t. Lechmere said to Mizen there was a policeman waiting for him, according to Mizen.


He is therefore an invention only, as opposed to an established fact.

So he must be an invention of Lechmere´s for you, or your Mizen scam doesn´t work, does it.

In that respect, he joins all the other suspects apart from Charles Lechmere who have been suggested as alternative killers of Polly Nichols - they are all phantasy figures in this respect.

I know that you have chosen to think that Lechmere lied about seeing a policeman in Buck´s Row. And when he testified he lied again. Lechmere is considered a "liar". Otherwise the scam doesn´t work.

Most of them are established figures from history, but their respective presences in Bucks Row are imaginary only.

But Lechmere told Mizen there was a policeman waiting for him. Mizen was sworn.

Proposing a man who is confirmed as having been in place (or, as the police normally describes it: having had opportunity) is automatically more viable when looking for suspects.

Mizen confirmed that Lechmere did tell him there was a policeman waiting for Mizen. So he was in place - or your scam is right. Which one is it?

In any other world, that goes without saying, but on Planet Ripper, it is not only questioned but actually shunned..!

Here, if we can show that at the approximate time when person A was killed, person B was present, the outcome is that persons C-Z are just as worthy suspects, if not even more worthy.

No. Mizen did not testify that Lechmere told him that person C-Z was waiying for him in Bucks Row. He said specifically that it was a "policeman".


Okay, I see: Lechmere saw the deed, was deadly terrified, decided not to tell a living soul about it - and then he rushed directly to Mizen and spilled the beans.
And in spite of how he knew that the ferocious killer had already left Bucks Row - as verified by how Robert Paul found Lechmere alone with the body - he said to Mizen that he was still in place and requested his assistance?

That´s a gem of a theory you have there. Hang on to it for dear life...

[Sam Flynn]

I'm totally confused, Fish. Were you arguing with yourself in the immediately-preceding post?

[GUT]

I'm totally confused, Fish. Were you arguing with yourself in the immediately-preceding post?

I couldn't follow it either.

But all these ones whe use bold and colors etc rater than quotes become so hardto follow, it makes your head hurt.