The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

I followed up on your suggestion around Chief Constables come from a high social class. I found another book online which provided names of Police Officials in 1888 - which revealed one possible other candidate in Colonel Bolton James Alfred Monsell (born 1840 in Ireland, father was a Vicar, achieved rank of Major in British Army, served in Canada, appointed by Warren , in 1891 Census was living at 25 Gordon Square, St Pancras with wife, kids and 5 servants.

Morsel was appointed by Warren to be responsible for East End but had a low profile in the investigation.

Does anyone know anything about Monsell ?

The other person who Warren appointed was Colonel Roberts - but I couldn't find him on Ancestry.

Hi Craig,

Monsell visited the Chapman crime scene in September 1888 (with Bruce) and was then again reported to be in Whitechapel a year later (with Monro), in September 1889, following the Pinchin St murder.

The other Chief Constables, and Assistant Chief Constables, in 1888, incidentally, were: Andrew Howard, Major Gilbert, Captain Knollys and Captain Dean.

Howard and Dean both have connections with India. That may be important because Pierre has theorised about a connection between his suspect and Thomas Bowyer, about whom the only thing known is that he was an Indian army pensioner. Captain Knollys was the brother of Sir Francis Knollys, the private secretary to the Prince of Wales if we are looking for a royal connection!

Again, if it turns out to be any of the above then Pierre lied about his suspect not being a Scotland Yard official.

[Monty]

I believe he also turned up at the Kelly scene, but I could be wrong.

Its late, and I'm tired.

Monty

[Whitechapel]

Monro had Indian connections too

1857: Enters Indian Civil Service and holds post of Assistant Magistrate and later Collector.

1863: Married.

1877: Becomes District Judge and Inspector-General of the Police in Bengal.

1881: Meets and becomes friends with Melville Macnaghten after the latter is assaulted by natives.

1883: Appointed Commissioner of the Presidency Division (Bombay).

1884: Resigns his post and returns to England to become Assistant Commissioner Metropolitan Police (Criminal Investigation Department).

1888: August - Resigns after a struggle with Commissioner Charles Warren over the independence of the CID and Warren's blocking of the appointment of Melville Macnaghten. Monro is appointed "Head of the Detective Service" by Home Secretary Henry Matthews.

November - Charles Warren resigns as Commissioner and is replaced by Monro.

1889: June - Appoints Melville Macnaghten Assistant Chief Constable (CID).

July - Investigates the murder of Alice McKenzie.

1890: Resigns as Commissioner after an arguement over the Police Pensions Bill and attempts to make civil servant Evelyn Ruggles-Brise Chief Constable (CID). Monro returns to India and sets up a medical mission at Rhanagat, 40 Miles from Calcutta.

[GUT]

Yes, I think we can now reasonably conclude that Pierre has completely abandoned logic in exchange for fantastical theories, and therefore conducting meaningful conversation with him is all but impossible.

Hasn't it been all but impossible since post number one.

[Hercule Poirot]

I have no idea what you mean by this Hercule. A circular argument is by definition a defective argument containing, by definition, a logical fallacy. Therefore, such an argument, by definition, has no real meaning at all.

I'll agree with you if you consider premises being true means that the conclusion are necessarily true. But if you consider the conclusion to be no more than possible, probable or plausible which is different than being real or true, than it may have a meaning in termes of exploratory options.

That's why I refered to deductive versus inductive resulting in certainity with the former compared to probability with the latter.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[Abby Normal]

I'll agree with you if you consider premises being true means that the conclusion are necessarily true. But if you consider the conclusion to be no more than possible, probable or plausible which is different than being real or true, than it may have a meaning in termes of exploratory options.

That's why I refered to deductive versus inductive resulting in certainity with the former compared to probability with the latter.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

Then no need for premise. If its true it's a fact.
The whole reason for a premise is to put forth an explanation for something that is not yet considered a fact.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Hercule,

I agree with you. And I must also point out something that I think you are pointing out in your description about jumping from deductive to inductive reasoning.

It does offer perspectives and that is due to the fact that pure logic is not the map for reality. Between the logical levels there is a social reality.

Reality, in this case the murders and thinking about the murders, therefore does not follow pure logic. And therefore, arguments concerning the murders can not be drawn from, or follow, pure logic.

The world is a social world, it is not in itself a great logical axiom.

The social world can not be understood by logical thinking but by SOCIOlogical thinking.

And history is a well founded story about the social world. Therefore history must be sociologically constructed and not constructed with the ideas of pure logic.

So logical reasoning in a circular form can be meaningful in real dimensions at the same time as it is being uttered: it can point to a meaning outside of the logical circle.

In ancient Greece, they thought they could deduce "truth" from "truth itself". The thought they could achieve knowledge from "eternal ideas". But here on earth, if we all draw a circle, it will be different and the differences are due to variables in the social world.

Kind Regards, Pierre

Classic!

Here is an example of circular reasoning. Pierre.

Everything Pierre says is a lie . Therefore Pierre is a liar.
By your own definition then you are a liar. Agree?

[el_pombo]

Hi Hercule,

It does offer perspectives and that is due to the fact that pure logic is not the map for reality. Between the logical levels there is a social reality.
(...)
The social world can not be understood by logical thinking but by SOCIOlogical thinking.

Kind Regards, Pierre

What do you mean by "pure logic"? There are several types of logic... mathematical logic, philosophical logic, computational logic, etc.

Sociology is a positive science and like every autonomous scientific field it has it's own paradigm, methods and it's own systemic logic that enable it to make sociological constructions from social phenomenons, place them in a referential and analyze them.

Sociological thinking is as logical as any other form of scientific thinking and the only way to explain social phenomenons is by logical thinking.

I hope I made a clear point, I urgently have to work on my English!

[Hercule Poirot]

Then no need for premise. If its true it's a fact.
The whole reason for a premise is to put forth an explanation for something that is not yet considered a fact.

Let me try to explain it in an other manner.

A, Premise
B, Conclusion

In circular reasonning, one says if A = B, then B= A. Pretending that given the premise A is true, concluding B is also true because of A is faulty. It gets worse when one reverses the logic and adds B = A is also true. It could never be true, maybe possible, probable or plausible but it never is certain truth. Staying within this way of reasoning is illogical. When one becomes aware of this illogicality, it provides an opportunity to break out of it and consider other options. Like Pierre said, 'it can point to a meaning outside of the logical circle.'

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

What do you mean by "pure logic"? There are several types of logic... mathematical logic, philosophical logic, computational logic, etc.

Sociology is a positive science and like every autonomous scientific field it has it's own paradigm, methods and it's own systemic logic that enable it to make sociological constructions from social phenomenons, place them in a referential and analyze them.

Sociological thinking is as logical as any other form of scientific thinking and the only way to explain social phenomenons is by logical thinking.

I hope I made a clear point, I urgently have to work on my English!

Or there's always Pierre's logic.

[Craig H]

Below is a long article written by a journalist in October 1888 which shows the toxic relationship between Warren and Monro

The Criminals and the Police of London - II
W.T. Stead (The Pall Mall Gazette, October 9, 1888)

The condition of the police force is unsatisfactory, but this is especially the case with the Detective Department. Of this the outward and visible sign was the resignation of Mr. Monro. It is that which warns the outside public how utterly the whole Criminal Investigation Department has gone to pieces under the new regime.

WHY MR. MONRO RESIGNED

No one who knows anything of Mr. Monro needs to be told that he would not have deserted his post in the midst of a campaign against murder if the friction had not been intolerable. He stood it as long as he could and then he gave up, and left his department to drift as it has drifted, and as it is drifting to this day.

What makes this all the more serious is that some time before Mr. Matthews had seen fit to get rid of Mr. Jenkinson, who was at the head of the secret political police attached to the Home Office. Mr. Matthews, therefore, when he entered office, had the advantage of having two highly trained and experienced officers, whose whole duty was the detection and prevention of crime. Last year he sacrificed Mr. Jenkinson. This year he has lost Mr. Monro. In both cases he may have been quite right. But it is well to remember that he is responsible for the policy which has brought him to the pass of having to confront a most serious condition of disorder and of murder panic without the two chiefs whom his predecessors deemed it essential to retain by their side. Mr. Jenkinson's departure, however, had nothing to do with the latest development of the Home Office policy.

In order to understand how it is that we have a detective department which cannot detect and a Criminal Investigation Department at which criminals snap their fingers, it is necessary to go back a little. The author and framer of the Criminal Investigation Department as it now exists was Mr. Howard Vincent, now M.P. for one of the divisions of Sheffield. It dates from the great outburst of public indignation at the discovery of the Druscovitch frauds, frauds which were carried on in the very heart of the department supposed to be charged with the detection of crime. Lord Cross, who was then Home Secretary, gave Mr. Vincent, who was a young and active member of a capable family, carte blanche to reorganize the Detective Department. Sir Edmund Henderson was then Chief Commissioner, and Mr. Howard Vincent was specially commissioned to carry out whatever reforms he thought necessary without much reference to the ideas of those who were nominally his official superiors. Mr. Vincent did his work with a will, and after a time he succeeded in establishing cosmos out of chaos. When Mr. Howard Vincent was director, and as long as he was director, the Detective Department was an imperium in imperio. When he left the force, in 1884, he handed over to his successor, Mr. Monro, an authority which, although exercised under another name, was hardly less absolute than that which he held. Colonel Henderson had acquiesced in the ascendancy of Mr. Vincent. He made no effort to assert his control over Mr. Monro. So it was that Mr. Monro began his career at Scotland-yard under auspices favourable to the development of self-reliance and independence. Mr. Monro, an old Anglo-Indian, was originally a man of strong will and of considerable resolution. Although only Assistant-Commissioner he was much the most capable man at the Yard, and when the Dodo was slain he was exempted from the general slaughter.

No sooner had Sir Charles Warren begun to feel at home in Scotland-yard than he decided that all authority must be centralized in himself. The capable, strong-willed man of energy always thinks everything will go better if he has got everything in his own hands. With Sir Charles action follows promptly upon resolution, and he speedily began to establish the supreme authority of the Chief Commissioner. Mr. Monro was only an Assistant-Commissioner. It was necessary, therefore, that he should be made to feel his place. This was done with a fine brutal frankness which certainly left its object in no doubt as to the intention of his chief. From of old the Detective Department was domiciled in the heart of Scotland-yard. Mr. Vincent's room, as Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, was one of the best in the collection of dogholes in which the metropolitan police have their headquarters. The department had outgrown its premises. The Hackney Carriage Department was crowding it: there was no place in which to put the official dossiers, and so it was decided to transfer the Detective Department to Whitehall-place. The staff of the Criminal Investigation Department were well-pleased, but Mr. Monro clung to his office in Scotland-yard. One fine day, however, he was bundled out without ceremony and packed off bag and baggage to Whitehall-place. This eviction, even if inevitable, might have been accomplished with more consideration, but as it was effected it did not conduce to the harmony of the office. The detectives began to feel that they were regarded as no longer part and parcel of the force. The department itself, established in another street, was looked upon somewhat in the light of "the concern over the way"-a rival rather than a branch of the same business. To such a length was this carried that detectives of long standing were made to feel that their presence in the Back Hall of Scotland-yard was regarded as an intrusion. The Chief Commissioner was believed to favour uniformed men, and to disparage the services of the plain-clothes branch. He could not be got to see that the detectives were in any way more efficient than his ordinary constables. If he wanted any work done that could not be done by Z 324, with his helmet on his head and his blue coat on his back, he would simply put Z 324 in ordinary clothes and expect him to do the work of a detective. The detectives were discouraged, discredited, and sat upon, and the dormant feeling of jealousy and animosity between the two branches began to grow apace, to the no small detriment of the efficiency of the service.

Naturally Mr. Monro, an officer devoted to his work, and accustomed for years to be supreme in his own department, could not easily brook the arbitrary procedure of the Chief Commissioner. But Sir Charles is not the man to tolerate insubordination or resistance to his will. Mr. Monro was given to understand that if he did not know the place of an Assistant-Commissioner Sir Charles did, and would give him lessons in the art of keeping it. There were some stiff passages between the chief and his assistant. Mr. Monro had often the best of the argument, but the authority lay with Sir Charles. The old habit of familiar conference with his inspectors was placed under restrictions which robbed it of much of its value, and which injured the morale of the inspectors. The centre of everything of the detective police, as well as of everything else, was to be Sir Charles. It even became a high crime and misdemeanour to put any one's name upon the outside of an official envelope except that of the First Commissioner. There was bitter heartburning in the Criminal Investigation Department, and Mr. Monro at last began to feel that unless his authority could be re-established he had better give up the hopeless attempt to maintain the efficiency of his office. The strength of the detective force is small. There are not quite 300 men, all told; 80 of whom are inspectors and 120 sergeants, with less than a hundred other distributed about the twenty-two metropolitan divisions. Mr. Monro wanted the strength of the force increased. The superintendents informed him that such an increase was necessary, and he applied for the addition of so many men to the strength of the C.I.D. This was like a red rag to the bull. Sir Charles would not hear of the proposed increase, and by the exercise of his immense authority over the superintendents he induced them to go back on their statement to Mr. Monro, and acquiesce in the Chief's favourite doctrine that constables in plain clothes were quite as good as detectives. So Mr. Monro did not get the desired addition to the detective force. He made another attempt however to restore efficiency to his department. He asked for a deputy to assist in carrying on the work of the central office, and named one Mr. Macnaghten, an old Anglo-Indian, for the post. Sir Charles Warren assented, and signed the papers. But hearing afterwards something which set him against Mr. Macnaghten he cancelled his signature to the papers, and asked Mr. Monro to nominate some one else. This Mr. Monro refused to do, making some excuse more or less hollow, which Sir Charles mercilessly exposed, and then, driven to bay, Mr. Monro resigned, on the ground that the constant interference of Sir Charles Warren had destroyed his authority and rendered it impossible for him to remain responsible for his department. The final cause of the rupture was comparatively trivial. Its very triviality shows how strained the relations must have been between the Chief and his assistant. The present impotence of the detective force when it is directed by Sir Charles in person is a grim justification of the accuracy of Mr. Monro's foreboding.

MILITARISM RAMPANT

The personnel of the staff at Scotland-yard is as follows:-

Major-General Sir Charles Warren, K.C.M.G., Chief Commissioner, Salary ... £1,500

Colonel Pearson (Discipline), Assistant-Commissioner .... £1,250

A. C. Bruce (Civil business), ditto .... £1,250

When Sir Charles Warren was appointed he had the advantage of a legal adviser at £1,000 per annum. That office has been suppressed. Mr. Monro, who was Assistant-Commissioner, has disappeared. His successor has not yet arrived. Under the Chief Commissioner in 1886 were two District Superintendents, Mr. Walker and Mr. Howard. Mr. Walker resigned with Colonel Henderson. His place was filled up by the appointment of a soldier - Lieut. Col. B. Monsell, Chief Constable of No. 1 District, at £625. The fourth Chief Constable is Major W. E. Gilbert: he has No. 4, Mr. Howard retaining No. 2. Two other soldiers were appointed as Assistant Chief Constables, namely:-

Captain Knollys, Assistant Chief Constable (Education Dept.)

Captain Dean, Do. Do. (Police Cavalry)

From this it appears that Sir Charles Warren has practically added five new soldiers to the executive staff at Scotland-yard. It consisted when he joined it of one soldier, two lawyers, one detective, and two policemen. It is now constituted as follows:- Six soldiers, one lawyer, and one policeman. The military element in 1886 was as one in six; it is now six out of eight. Sir Charles himself is soldier enough to supply militarism for the whole force, but instead of strengthening himself where he was weak he has done just the opposite. He has surrounded himself with soldiers and driven away the detective. The effect of this is felt throughout the entire force. Felt, but not admired. Perhaps the maddest manifestation of this militarism rampant was the appointment of an ex-captain of the Guards to impart systematic instruction to the young constables. As the guardsman has no practical acquaintance with "how constabulary duty should be done," his systematic instruction naturally resolves itself into a poor kind of drill.

The essential difference between a soldier and a constable is that the former is seldom or never used out of formation, while the latter is seldom or never in formation. That is to say, the soldier is an integral part of a machine, the efficiency of which presupposes the absolute and mechanical obedience of all its parts. The constable, on the contrary, is called upon at all hours to exercise his own judgment, to solve knotty practical questions of law and of fact, to compose disputes, to dispense rough-and-ready justice, and, in short, to act as an independent unit. For every policeman is the bishop of his beat, with jurisdiction almost like that of a magistrate. If he winks he can suspend the operation of the law. If he pleases he can convert the law into a weapon of oppression. The soldier is never left alone. He never acts on his own initiative. He is always under the eye of his officer, and his supreme quality is unhesitating and unqualified obedience. The constable is always left alone. he is constantly acting on his own initiative, and his supreme duty is the habitual exercise of self-reliance and common sense. Hence militarism is fatal to the force. But with Sir Charles Warren militarism is supreme.
TEMPER v. TACT

The Chief Commissioner, vehement and resolute, has a hand of iron. He has not a velvet glove. On the contrary, while he is fortiter in re he is fortissime in modo. Sir Charles Warren being a religious man does not swear. No round comfortable oath is ever discharged by him at recalcitrant officers. But the superintendent at whose head awe-struck rumour relates that a ruler was hurled in wrath would probably have preferred the bad word to the heavy stick. The unfortunate superintendents! Most of them have risen from the ranks; some of them are still in mind and character essentially of the type of the ordinary ranker. It is impossible not to pity them when confronted with a raging, roaring Major-General in his lair at Scotland-yard. On one occasion a luckless superintendent of Sir Charles Warren's own appointing-a very bad appointment too-happened to be circumvented by the Socialists, who held their meeting and broke a window pane in defiance of the Chief's orders. With quaking heart and trembling knees, he was ushered into the Chief Commissioner's presence. He had not long to wait for him mittimus. "You a superintendent!" roared Sir Charles, in a towering rage, "you a superintendent! You are not fit to be a third-class constable. Out of my presence this moment!" and the poor wretch slunk away, to find himself compelled to resign on the pension of an inspector. The result is that there is a veritable reign of terror among the superintendents. They hardly dare call their souls their own. From being more or less the independent chiefs of districts as large as a provincial town, they have been reduced to the position of so many toads under the harrow of an absolute autocrat.

The local inspectors do not, fortunately for themselves, come into contact with the Chief Commissioner. But their life is made a burden to them by the endless stream of confusing and often conflicting orders, all drawn up in the same peremptory fashion. No doubt much of this irritation is unavoidable. Sir Charles is honestly endeavouring to introduce some kind of order into the chaos which exists in the Force, but legislation by mandates in their daily orders is somewhat bewildering. If this is the condition to which he has reduced the superintendents and inspectors, the relations which have been established between the heads, of departments in Scotland-yard are simply indescribable. Mr. Pennefather is the Receiver. The salary of his office is equal to that of an Assistant Commissioner. He represents the Home Office and the Treasury, and in that capacity is the most important officer at Scotland-yard after Sir Charles. With the Receiver the Chief Commissioner is at open war. Six weeks ago it was currently reported that he had refused to allow his Assistant Commissioners to countersign the Receiver's cheques, so that 150 salaries had remained unpaid for a couple of months after they fell due. That difficulty, it is said, was patched up by the personal intervention of Mr. Goschen, but the feud remains. The two high officials are not on speaking terms, and the story goes that the latest order is that no member of the Force shall speak to the Receiver without a written permission from the Chief Commissioner! It is not true, of course, but it is ben trovato. In the Medical Department also, the Chief Surgeon is said to be at logger-heads with the Chief Commissioner.

Still, this may be necessary friction. It may be that King Stork is quite right, and that all those who cry out against him deserve to be cleared out. But what is quite clear is that until they are cleared out nothing need be expected from Scotland-yard. Either Sir Charles Warren should be allowed to have his way, and be supported by officials who will do his bidding, or else he should be appointed to some other sphere where his qualities would be better appreciated by his subordinates and his superiors. It cannot be for the public interest that the bear-garden at Scotland-yard should continue much longer.
DISCONTENT IN THE RANKS

With such a spectacle at headquarters, it cannot be wondered at that the rank and file are discontented and out of hand. The ordinary constable has been severely tried of late. He hates the military drill and the martinet ways of his new chief. He dislikes the severity with which Sir Charles is endeavouring to restore a higher standard of morality. The laxity of the previous regime makes him resent all the more bitterly the regime of his new masters. And then, as if to make these hardships quite intolerable, there has come a very unpleasant antagonism between the constables on duty and a very considerable number of their fellow citizens.

Sir Charles has tried to do two things at once. He is using the Metropolitan Force as janissaries to suppress by force all attempts of the people to exercise their ancient and accustomed liberties, while he is at the same time screwing up the standard of personal conduct by punishments which even the strictest Puritan must regard as excessive. The offence of drinking when on duty is, no doubt, serious. But when it comes to what is equivalent to a fine of £50 for taking a glass of beer when on duty, it is not surprising that the constables feel that it is more than human nature can stand. It takes a policeman eight years to rise from the third class, with 24s., to a first class, with 30s. He loses all his eight years' service if he is caught taking a glass of beer without the permission of his commanding officer. The number thus reduced is stated at about a score a week; but this seems exaggerated. Even at half that figure, this would account for 500 constables per annum reduced in rank, and all smarting with a sense of being unjustly treated. Hard as this is to bear, it is perhaps less grievous than the altered relations in which the police stand to the people among whom they exercise their functions. No doubt the bludgeoning of the mob out of Trafalgar-square was very popular in the clubs and in society. But the bludgeoned mob naturally took another view of it. The applause of society is but faintly audible in the slums of Whitechapel or in the squalid streets of Southwark. It may be only a minority that distrusts the police and remembers Trafalgar-square, but it is a very blatant minority, which makes its existence felt on every beat throughout London. Thus, at the same time that Sir Charles was making the discipline of the service harder, the service itself was rendered more unpopular.

[See errors in this document? Please Flag it up here.Thanks!]

[Pierre]

Classic!

Here is an example of circular reasoning. Pierre.

Everything Pierre says is a lie . Therefore Pierre is a liar.
By your own definition then you are a liar. Agree?

"Everything Pierre says is a lie" according some social agents. "Therefore Pierre is a liar" according to them. By my own definition then I am being socially constructed as a liar.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

"Everything Pierre says is a lie" according some social agents. "Therefore Pierre is a liar" according to them. By my own definition then I am being socially constructed as a liar.

Regards, Pierre

Yes, your conclusion makes perfect logical sense. I've also noticed that you have developed a recent penchant for the phrase "socially constructed." I remember when I was studying sociology I tended to use phrases such as "social construction" and "socially constructed" quite a lot. This leads me to hypothesize that Pierre has studied sociology, or is being assisted by some such person.

I also ask myself, is Pierre familiar with hermeneutic phenomenology as a research method?

Pierre, are you attempting to solve this mystery through a process of detached contemplation? Are you an Indian mystic?

[David Orsam]

When one becomes aware of this illogicality, it provides an opportunity to break out of it and consider other options.

Well okay, Hercule, if you say so, but then there is no meaning in the circular argument itself. This is hardly surprising because a circular argument is, by definition, fallacious and thus meaningless. In which case, it is ridiculous to say that a circular argument can be meaningful, which is why I found Pierre's statement that I quoted in #572 amusing.

Incidentally, any argument which includes the sentence "Like Pierre said" is pretty much bound to fail.

[David Orsam]

Here's my own take on the "Pierre situation".

I think that he probably was probably doing some genuine research which involved access to private papers of a senior police officer from 1888 held in some form of family archive.

Amongst those papers, I suspect he found some evidence that this police officer had a degree of anatomical knowledge. His excitement levels increased when he also found some documentation relating to, or appearing to relate to, the Ripper murders. Perhaps amongst the papers was some sort of confession to those murders (or apparent confession) which Pierre has concluded was authored by the officer himself.

I very much doubt that he has any more actual evidence than this. He may or may not be correct about the anatomical knowledge but I feel sure he is wrong about the confession being by the police officer and simply misunderstood what he was reading.

Anyway, having got himself into a pickle of excitement about what he discovered he began seeing clues pointing to his suspect everywhere he looked. The cut on Eddowes' face represented a chevron, the signature "GOGMAGOG" represented a policeman, Lechmere's evidence placed a policeman at the scene of the crime. Not knowing much about the Ripper murders he also began to see police conspiracies and cover-ups where none actually existed, misunderstanding the delay in entering MJK's room caused by the wait for the bloodhounds and building that delay up into a entire drama of its own.

Certain that he had the key to the murders, he poured over newspaper reports, photographs and building plans and convinced himself that he had single-handedly discovered many crucial facts hitherto unknown to Ripperology.

We can see for ourselves in the postings that once he gets an idea in his head it becomes impossible to remove and he cannot see any other point of view.

If I'm right, it's a shame because he might possibly have discovered something interesting in the family papers but not, I feel sure, the identity of the Ripper. That is why he will never get "the final" piece of evidence to prove his theory and why I guess he will never tell us what he actually has found.