The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Pierre]

A triangle has three sides, and three defined angles. The flaps on Eddowes had two sides and no angles.

A chevron has two sides.

The killer COULD have made a V if he wanted to. He did not.

You donīt know what the killer could have done or what he wanted.

Eddowesī eyes were not cut. Her eyelids were.

I am discussing the eyes since there usually are eyes behind eyelids. And Eddowes had eyes.

And THOSE cuts could not be collateral damage, as the flaps certainly could - and probably are.

"Probable"? According to what science and what scientific reports, Fisherman? Do you have a medical exam now?

Your reliance on Brown and his being a primary source is touching.

?

It can never turn the flaps into triangles anyway. The had a vague resemblance of triangles, thatīs all.

Dr Brown did not judge the cuts as having any "vague resemblance". They were triangular according to him.

And they would have, owing to the underlying structure they were cut into.

So you DO have a medical exam? Have you advanced from being a journalist to being a medical scientist?

Eddowes had protruding cheekbones and was slim.

Fisherman: You are trying to do an analysis of a body you have never seen and with tools you have never had!

If the killer had cut flaps into Chapmans face, they would still be distantly reminiscent of a trianle shape, but less so than on Eddowes. Itīs no rocket science.

And now you even think you can do a comparative analysis with tools and knowledge that you donīt have.

Take a knife and cut shallowly into an apple, peeling up flaps and you will get what was on Eddowes face.

Excuse me. But now I feel sorry for you, Fisherman. "Take a knife" and cut "into an apple"? Do you think that medical students do there practice on apples?

It wonīt turn that apple into a chevroned general, though.

Ah! There he is again! The journalist. Twisting words. I think youīd better stick to that and avoid both history and medicine. Thank you.

Regards Pierre

[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.

Hi there,

Yes, and perhaps the worst thing of them all is the unknown unknowns coming in the shape of knowing pretending to be knowledge. I find a lot of that here.

Amos Simpson? No. I donīt even know who that is.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Pierre,

Its more than a little disconcerting that you are alleging this "knowledge" and understanding of these events yet you clearly have not even bothered to familiarize yourself with the various people or the details in the cases.

I suppose you might understand how that sits with people who have studied for years without ever making any unsubstantiated claims to knowledge.

[Fisherman]

Regards Pierre

I have little time for playing games, Pierre, so here is my last post to you in this errand. I will answer your point number one, and leave the rest to oblivion. You should be grateful for that.

You say that a chevron has two sides. It is neither here nor there, since nobody but you has ever come up with the idea that Eddowes had upside down chevrons on her cheeks.

What I said was that a triangle has three sides and three angles. This I pointed out since you said that Brown had spoken of the skin flaps as triangular. He said absolutely nothing about chevrons, so your point has no anchoring.

Apart from that, a chevron has no surface, the way a triangle has. It therefore has no sides, it has legs. If we look at the chevron image you posted, with a surface, it actually has six sides.

So six sides, or two legs, is what a chevron has.

That tells it apart from those who have no legs at all to stand on.

... and that is all the troll food I am serving today.

[John G]

Hi there,

Yes, and perhaps the worst thing of them all is the unknown unknowns coming in the shape of knowing pretending to be knowledge. I find a lot of that here.

Amos Simpson? No. I donīt even know who that is.

Kind regards, Pierre

Thanks Pierre. Never heard of Amos Simpson? Well, I never. According to Russell Edwards, who apparently has incontrovertible DNA evidence linking Kosminksi to Eddowes murder, he removed Eddowes Shawl from being he murder scene, keeping it as a somewhat macabre memento. Personally, as he was an Islington officer, I think the only way he could have been in More Square at the relevant time is if he was parachuted in via a prototype helicopter.

Am I allowed a second guess? If so, what about Sergeant William Thick, otherwise known as "Johnny Upright"? There are suggestions he might have been a corrupt officer and he lived close to both the Stride murder site and the site of the discovery of the Pinchin Street Torso.

In fact, the day the Torso was discovered a Mr HT Haslewood of Tottenham wrote a letter to the Home Office stating, "I have very good grounds to believe the person who has committed the Whitechapel murders is a member of the police force." A month later he sent a second letter naming Thick as JtR.

Interstingly, I believe Sergeant Thick was the only police officer at the time to be accused of being the Ripper.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Fisherman:

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?

Thatīs a gem of a theory you have there. Hang on to it for dear life...

Hi Fisherman,

I knew you would say that. And I donīt really have any problems with that since we donīt know what Lechmere saw, if he did see a policeman in Buckīs Row (or not). But letīs try some answers just for fun, starting with the hypothesis that Lechmere did see a policeman in Buckīs Row:

Lechmere is coming down Buckīs Row. He stops when he sees someone looking as a policeman sitting or standing over a woman lying on the ground. The policeman pulls down the skirt a bit, turns around and says: "I think a crime has been committed here. Could you please go and look for another policeman? I will go and see if I can find one too." The policeman walks around the corner.

What happens now?

A) Lechmere is standing in the road, thinking about his work and what he should do. He will be late for work. If he doesnīt go looking for another policeman, nobody will notice since they will just assume he couldnīt find one. He tries to make his mind up, standing in the middle of the road, when Robert Paul is coming along.

Lechmere touches Paul on the shoulder and asks him to look at the woman, who is lying across the gateway. He tells Paul about the other policeman and what he said. Lechmere and Paul feels the hands and face of the woman on the ground, then they pull down the skirt a bit further. The walk together to Montague Street where they speak to Mizen and Lechmere tells Mizen that he is wanted in Buckīs Row by another policeman.

B) Lechmere is standing in the road, worried about the policeman. He has a feeling something was wrong with him. Then Robert Paul is coming.

Lechmere touches Paul on the shoulder and asks him to look at the woman, who is lying across the gateway. He tells Paul about the other policeman and what he said. Lechmere and Paul felt the hands and face of the woman on the ground, then they pull down the skirt a bit further. The walk together to Montague Street where they speak to Mizen and Lechmere tells Mizen that he is wanted in Buckīs Row by another policeman.

C) Lechmere is standing in the road, looking towards the corner where the policeman went. He is not sure of what he should do. Maybe he should wait for the policeman to come back with another policeman. Then Robert Paul is coming.

Lechmere touches Paul on the shoulder and asks him to look at the woman, who is lying across the gateway. He tells Paul about the other policeman and what he said. Lechmere and Paul feels the hands and face of the woman on the ground, then they pull down the skirt a bit further. The walk together to Montague Street where they speak to Mizen and Lechmere tells Mizen that he is wanted in Buckīs Row by another policeman.

D) Lechmere is standing in the road, looking towards the corner where the policeman went. He is scared and thinks there is something wrong with the policeman. Maybe he should just quickly go and find someone, he canīt make his mind up. He is thinking that he must be wrong about the policeman and suddenly Robert Paul is coming.

Lechmere touches Paul on the shoulder and asks him to look at the woman, who is lying across the gateway. He tells Paul about the other policeman and what he said. Lechmere and Paul feels the hands and face of the woman on the ground, then they pull down the skirt a bit further. The walk together to Montague Street where they speak to Mizen and Lechmere tells Mizen that he is wanted in Buckīs Row by another policeman.

There you go, Fisherman. And I bet you can think of more scenarios.

So what was the mistake you made in your scenario in this post? The mistake was that you wrote:

"Okay, I see: Lechmere saw the deed, was deadly terrified, decided not to tell a living soul about it"

Because he DID TELL a living soul about it, didnīt he? He told Mizen. Or was Mizen lying?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Au contraire, you are talking about two murders within two different police jurisdictions.

Surely that causes a problem, non?

A good question. No, it doesnīt. But I am really interested in why you think it would!

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Pierre. Never heard of Amos Simpson? Well, I never. According to Russell Edwards, who apparently has incontrovertible DNA evidence linking Kosminksi to Eddowes murder, he removed Eddowes Shawl from being he murder scene, keeping it as a somewhat macabre memento. Personally, as he was an Islington officer, I think the only way he could have been in More Square at the relevant time is if he was parachuted in via a prototype helicopter.

Am I allowed a second guess? If so, what about Sergeant William Thick, otherwise known as "Johnny Upright"? There are suggestions he might have been a corrupt officer and he lived close to both the Stride murder site and the site of the discovery of the Pinchin Street Torso.

In fact, the day the Torso was discovered a Mr HT Haslewood of Tottenham wrote a letter to the Home Office stating, "I have very good grounds to believe the person who has committed the Whitechapel murders is a member of the police force." A month later he sent a second letter naming Thick as JtR.

Interstingly, I believe Sergeant Thick was the only police officer at the time to be accused of being the Ripper.

I believe Reid was mentioned too.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I notice that in the past you said:

"I have seen a picture of one of his closest relatives and I can just imagine from that picture how he looked. Oh my god. He was no idiot, I can tell you that."

does this mean, as the passage suggests that you have not seen a photo of the suspect, because if you had you would not need to imagine how he looked?

cheers

[Pierre]

Hi Mayerling,

thanks for your questions.

I have only read Sugdenīs book. I read a lot of literature within the field of social science and history. I agree with you that the ripperologic literature can be interesting apart from the cherry picking of suspects. But for this case I prefer to read primary sources from the 1880s. Ancient and modern Greek are of my interests. I am not religious and have not been studying to become a priest. Thanks for your view on the history of modern Greece.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Its more than a little disconcerting that you are alleging this "knowledge" and understanding of these events yet you clearly have not even bothered to familiarize yourself with the various people or the details in the cases.

I suppose you might understand how that sits with people who have studied for years without ever making any unsubstantiated claims to knowledge.

They do their bit and I do mine. I am not any better then they are.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

I notice that in the past you said:

"I have seen a picture of one of his closest relatives and I can just imagine from that picture how he looked. Oh my god. He was no idiot, I can tell you that."

does this mean, as the passage suggests that you have not seen a photo of the suspect, because if you had you would not need to imagine how he looked?

cheers

Hi Steve,

I havenīt seen a photo of him yet. I think there might be one in an archive, and I am in no hurry to see it.

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

Hi Mayerling,

thanks for your questions.

I have only read Sugdenīs book. I read a lot of literature within the field of social science and history. I agree with you that the ripperologic literature can be interesting apart from the cherry picking of suspects. But for this case I prefer to read primary sources from the 1880s. Ancient and modern Greek are of my interests. I am not religious and have not been studying to become a priest. Thanks for your view on the history of modern Greece.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Sugden's a good choice. Rumbelow may be a little out of date, but he was okay too.

Jeff

[Pierre]

I have little time for playing games, Pierre, so here is my last post to you in this errand. I will answer your point number one, and leave the rest to oblivion. You should be grateful for that.

You say that a chevron has two sides. It is neither here nor there, since nobody but you has ever come up with the idea that Eddowes had upside down chevrons on her cheeks.

OK. So the earth is still flat.

What I said was that a triangle has three sides and three angles. This I pointed out since you said that Brown had spoken of the skin flaps as triangular. He said absolutely nothing about chevrons, so your point has no anchoring.

Dr Brown was a medical expert, not a criminologist.

Apart from that, a chevron has no surface, the way a triangle has. It therefore has no sides, it has legs. If we look at the chevron image you posted, with a surface, it actually has six sides.

So six sides, or two legs, is what a chevron has.

That tells it apart from those who have no legs at all to stand on.

You say the same thing over and over again.

... and that is all the troll food I am serving today.

You canīt cook.

Regards Pierre

[SirJohnFalstaff]

A good question. No, it doesnīt. But I am really interested in why you think it would!

Regards, Pierre

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.