The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Brenda]

.

Found this: Jack the Myth
A.P. Wolf
Robert Hale, 1993. Illus, index.

Casebook Review:

A difficult book to find. Wolf suggests the Stride was killed by her lover, Michael Kidney, and that the remaining victims were done in by Thomas Cutbush. Very little evidence is provided to back up either assertion. Recommended only for collectors.

Regards Pierre

In all fairness, I believe AP presented about as much evidence as any other Ripper author has to back up their suspect. There isn't much evidence pointing to anyone in particular. As this thread clearly shows, JTR "research" is mostly smoke and mirrors.

[Rosella]

Pierre has not read books on the Ripper? No, probably not, judging by the depth of his knowledge on various aspects. However, he's certainly trawled the threads of Casebook, picking up information here, there and everywhere.

Plus, Surely to goodness if you were going to slice a chevron shape onto someone's face (or a V for Victoria or victim) it would be much much easier to slash a sharp V than leave marks that look dome shaped?

[Harry D]

The profession of Jack the Ripper.

Butcher? Baker? Candlestick maker?

[GUT]

In all fairness, I believe AP presented about as much evidence as any other Ripper author has to back up their suspect. There isn't much evidence pointing to anyone in particular. As this thread clearly shows, JTR "research" is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Especially Pierre's "research".

[GUT]

Pierre has not read books on the Ripper? No, probably not, judging by the depth of his knowledge on various aspects. However, he's certainly trawled the threads of Casebook, picking up information here, there and everywhere.

Plus, Surely to goodness if you were going to slice a chevron shape onto someone's face (or a V for Victoria or victim) it would be much much easier to slash a sharp V than leave marks that look dome shaped?

I agree, little or no research at all. Hasn't even heard of Cutbush, wonder if he's read MM, or Swanson?

[GUT]

Butcher? Baker? Candlestick maker?

All jumped out of a rotten, ....??..??

[Rosella]

In all fairness, I believe AP presented about as much evidence as any other Ripper author has to back up their suspect. There isn't much evidence pointing to anyone in particular. As this thread clearly shows, JTR "research" is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Oh come on, Brenda. It's true no-one has proven who Jack was. However, look at the amount of information contained in Casebook and collected by meticulous and keen researchers over years. Victorian London and Whitechapel specifically, victims' backgrounds, witnesses, neighbours of the victims, police officers, the workings of Scotland Yard, the list is endless and fascinating. That is hardly 'smoke and mirrors' is it?

[Pcdunn]

Catch-22?

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

It is beginning to remind me of 1984 or Catch-22, in which discussions are hampered by the language and thought processes of surreal institutions. If we say he denied it was a policeman, he says, "yes, I did, but I didn't mean to mislead, just keep quiet."

So, as in Catch-22, "if you're crazy, you can get out of the service-- but if you SAY you're crazy, then you're not, and we're keeping you in the service."

To say nothing of 1984's Thought Police and Double Speak...

[Pcdunn]

Three men in a tub

All jumped out of a rotten, ....??..??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub-a-dub-dub

They do give variant lyrics.

I've also heard "They went to sea in a sieve / and that was the end of them!"

[Rosella]

Thomas Cutbush (according to the A-Z) was a clerk at a tea merchants and then a canvasser for the Directory. He then threw a senior member of the firm down some stairs and was subsequently fired. He then studied medicine by himself, obsessively, in between developing his charming habit of going about stabbing young women in the backside.

Superintendent Cutbush may have been Thomas's uncle. He shot himself in 1896, after suffering insomnia and depression. At the time of the Ripper killings he was a superintendent of A Division and was loosely involved in the Martha Tabram case.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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 if one could find some general facts about any police officials to discuss it could be meaningful and lead forward.

Regards Pierre

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

Surely that causes a problem, non?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I had to think hard about if i should reply to you or not.

Let s look at what has been said:

Yesterday you informed us all you believe the Whitechapel killer was A police office, GOOD.

My immediate response was to mentioned that I believed you had denied this previously.

I intended to do a follow up post to my initial one once I had re read what was actually said. On doing this I found a post from you which was some what different from what I had posted, basically I had said Police officer, you had said Scotland Yard Official.

not wanting to misrepresent you I posted:

"I was mistaken in my belief that you said it was not a police officer, and I am happy to apologise.

what you actually said was:

A Halloween Mystery: The Monro Standpoint Thread
post36
"Well, the person I have found wasnīt a Scotland Yard official"

I think it is easy how that can be misunderstood, the two police forces involved in the case were the Met and the City police, Scotland yard and the Met are often seen as one and the same.
one assumes that you are really saying it was not a senior Met Police officer."

you replied that I was not wrong, and there was no need to apologise.

you have since posted

"You did honestly ask me if I had not said that he was not a policeman and you thought you were wrong. I said you were right so I answered you honestly to and told you I changed my mind. What is the problem with that?"


which i think was very fair reply.

You were then asked if the change of mind was about the suspect or about what you said about your suspect. And you were asked polity if it were the later had you not in fact been misleading people.

your response:

"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."

You were challenged on this,

"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."

you replied with (i have underlined one phrase because i want to highlight it later

"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. "

you also said

"But someone tried to imply he could have been a police official. And I did not want people to think that."


we now get to the issues.

Why is it important you ask; You really do not seem to comprehend that this is issue of creditability, research is about creditability, in this particular area the Whitechapel murders, creditability as been an issue over the years as you rightly say.

However you appear not see it as a problem in your case, instead you say you did it because someone asked if your suspect was a police officer, what was actually said was by Rosella in post 35 of A Halloween Mystery: The Monro Standpoint Thread


"People suggesting Sir Melville or Warren certainly aren't attention seekers. The identity JTR is unknown. Any name can be put forward."

It was then in post 36 you said it was not a Scotland Yard Official.

your post makes it clear you did not want people to think this.

The only problem Pierre is that this is a message board , a forum to discuss issue relating to and arising from the Whitechapel murders.

You or course have the right not to disclosure details about your suspect, but once you post and start writing about your ideas, those ideas are no longer yours to control.
if people responding to a thread about your theory want to discuss anything related it is their right.

You could actively refuse to comment, by saying "i cant say" or "no comment", as you do on occasions.
You could just ignore what was said, which if you are aiming to keep something secret is probably the best approach.
Why would you say something that was obliviously untrue.


WHAT IF YOUR SUSPECT WAS NAMED AND YOU SAID, NO ITS NOT THEM! WHERE IS YOUR CREDITABILITY THEN

[SuspectZero]

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,
I posted this question in another thread to you but it seems more appropriate to post it here given this thread started about JTR's profession -
Is your suspect a police surgeon?

[Brenda]

Oh come on, Brenda. It's true no-one has proven who Jack was. However, look at the amount of information contained in Casebook and collected by meticulous and keen researchers over years. Victorian London and Whitechapel specifically, victims' backgrounds, witnesses, neighbours of the victims, police officers, the workings of Scotland Yard, the list is endless and fascinating. That is hardly 'smoke and mirrors' is it?

Wow Rosella. Thanks for calling me out. I appreciate it.

I said "as this thread clearly shows"....I did not refer to all of Casebook. Indeed, I don't think I would have followed this case through 16 years now if I thought the whole case was useless.

[Brenda]

.

Especially Pierre's "research".

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. Apparently I was taken the wrong way though.