The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[jerryd]

He was also the only policeman at the time to be accused of being the Ripper. Thus, on September 10th 1889, exactly one year after Thick's arrest of Pizer, the Pinchin Street Torso was discovered, close to where Thick lived. That day a Mr HT Hazelwood, of Tottenham, sent a letter to the Home Office, stating, "I have very good grounds to believe that 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 the Ripper and suggesting that he caught syphilis from prostitutes.

Hi John,

Don't forget about PC Watkins. He had two complaints filed about him being the Ripper. One by someone using the name "An Accessory" in October of 1888 and another by an anonymous correspondent from Trowbridge. The motive given in the first complaint, was his hatred and spite toward the authorities of Scotland Yard. [source:The Complete and Essential Jack the Ripper by Paul Begg and John Bennett]

[John G]

No, John. You are agreeing with what Jerry is writing. That is the point. And he has the same type of hypothesis as Fisherman.

You donīt understand why I will not name the person I think was the killer before I am ready to do so. And yet I have explained why many times.

Just because you donīt understand how serial killers can communicate with the police doesnīt mean he did not communicate with them.

The question concerning Stride is just a question as I have clearly stated but which you fail to understand. That does not make it nonsense even if it might be. You should try and read some scientific literature on serial killers instead of ripperology.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

I have read scientific studies on serial killers, I.e. Keppel, a respected criminologist and FBI profiler, and Schlesinger, PhD, another highly respected crimonologist.

And, as a matter of fact, I agree with you that much of the research concerning the Whitechapel murders has been less than scientific, i.e. Bruce Robinson's latest book. However, the problem is this: despite dozens of threads, and hundreds of posts. you have yet to give any indication that your method is any more scientific than those you seek to criticize. In fact, as you will not name your suspect, or provide details of any concrete supporting evidence that you may have, it is impossible to properly evaluate whether your theory has any merit at all. And as noted, the theories that you have submitted imply a less than scientific approach.

Nonetheless, I have been been prepared to take an objective approach, which is why I have repeatedly asked you to provide your credentials, such as text books you have written, of peer reviewed articles that you've had published- not unreasonable, given that you have claimed to be an historian- but you have thus far failed to respond, from which I draw certain reasonable inferences.

To put it simply, you have a credibility problem.

[John G]

Pierre acolyte, moi ? I'm not even a Fisherman's Friend.

Well it seems we have a MOUNTAIN to climb. I think Pierre's point is that in both the Nicholls and McKenzie cases the PCs are at the least misleading and at the worst telling porkies. PC Mizen says Cross/Lechmere says there was a policeman in attendance with Nicholls (Cross/Lechmere denied this) and PC Mountain/Andrews is a late whistle blower. Is there a pattern here ? and who is PC Mountain/Andrews hiding ? another PC ?

It's been driving me nuts but if a cachous in Stride's hand is worth a Crook in Shepherd's Bush, is a Bronze farthing on Alice McKenzie worth a Copper in Whitechapel. I'm cautiously optimistic even though I can't find a fair cop.

Well that's good to hear! And, I must say, I do admire your optimism, especially as I'm a died in the wool sceptic myself!

Anyway, I'm currently having a whale of a time exchanging ideas with Pierre. Okay..I know I said no more fish jokes, but that's obviously a mammal joke!

[John G]

Hi John,

Don't forget about PC Watkins. He had two complaints filed about him being the Ripper. One by someone using the name "An Accessory" in October of 1888 and another by an anonymous correspondent from Trowbridge. The motive given in the first complaint, was his hatred and spite toward the authorities of Scotland Yard. [source:The Complete and Essential Jack the Ripper by Paul Begg and John Bennett]

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for this. I certainly think it reasonable to postulate that the killer may have been a police officer, or at least had a knowledge of police beats. In fact, even Wynne Baxter seemed to think this, as demonstrated by this exchange at the Stride inquest:

Constable Lamb: "Constables at fixed- points leave duty at one in the morning. I believe that is the practice nearly all over London."

Coroner: "I think this is important. The Hanbury Street murder was discovered just as the night police were going off duty."

[John G]

Correction

Of course, in Post 723 I meant to say "dyed in the wool, and not "died in the wool." Nonetheless, I concede that the possibility of a illiteracy issue cannot be entirely discounted, but clearly it's more probable that we are dealing with a predictive text issue!

Anyway, that's my preferred explanation and I'm sticking to it!

[The Good Michael]

Summary thus far;

711 posts
0 evidence provided
0 suspects named

Nice thread, very instructive.

Unfair! What about when he said... never mind. That wasn't accurate either.

Mike

[Mayerling]

Of course, in Post 723 I meant to say "dyed in the wool, and not "died in the wool." Nonetheless, I concede that the possibility of a illiteracy issue cannot be entirely discounted, but clearly it's more probable that we are dealing with a predictive text issue!

Anyway, that's my preferred explanation and I'm sticking to it!

At least you corrected the error. The last person I heard of who "died in the wool' or "in the woods" under odd circumstances was King William Rufus in 1100. Plenty of retinue around, but no Police Constables.

By the way, while I know what "P.C." means in the context of this board, I keep imagining 1888 personages using private computers. Terminology does change a bit.

Jeff

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

I have read scientific studies on serial killers, I.e. Keppel, a respected criminologist and FBI profiler, and Schlesinger, PhD, another highly respected crimonologist.

And, as a matter of fact, I agree with you that much of the research concerning the Whitechapel murders has been less than scientific, i.e. Bruce Robinson's latest book. However, the problem is this: despite dozens of threads, and hundreds of posts. you have yet to give any indication that your method is any more scientific than those you seek to criticize. In fact, as you will not name your suspect, or provide details of any concrete supporting evidence that you may have, it is impossible to properly evaluate whether your theory has any merit at all. And as noted, the theories that you have submitted imply a less than scientific approach.

Nonetheless, I have been been prepared to take an objective approach, which is why I have repeatedly asked you to provide your credentials, such as text books you have written, of peer reviewed articles that you've had published- not unreasonable, given that you have claimed to be an historian- but you have thus far failed to respond, from which I draw certain reasonable inferences.

To put it simply, you have a credibility problem.

Hi John,

I donīt have a credibility problem since credibility is meaningless for me. I am waiting to give you the ID of the killer until I have the right data source. If I get this, credibility will be a thing of the past in ripperology.

Today I have done some work with a few sources and I have made some progress. I have found some new evidence on a micro level. I am analysing data sources from his life and I think that the so called "Whitehall Mystery" dismemberment murder was his first murder. So it is not the canonical victims first, but a dismemberment murder first and after that it is Polly Nichols. I have also found an interesting fact about his life, connected to his MO. So I am happy today.

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

Hi John,

I donīt have a credibility problem since credibility is meaningless for me. I am waiting to give you the ID of the killer until I have the right data source. If I get this, credibility will be a thing of the past in ripperology.

Today I have done some work with a few sources and I have made some progress. I have found some new evidence on a micro level. I am analysing data sources from his life and I think that the so called "Whitehall Mystery" dismemberment murder was his first murder. So it is not the canonical victims first, but a dismemberment murder first and after that it is Polly Nichols. I have also found an interesting fact about his life, connected to his MO. So I am happy today.

Regards, Pierre

I was under the impression that Pierre had included the torso murders among his candidate's killings. Several of these predated the "Whitehall Mystery" death, and if so, it can't be "his first murder". Of course, in "Pierre - speak" "So it is not the canonical victims first, but a dismemberment murder first and after that it is Polly Nichols" may mean the "Whitehall Mystery was not the first of the crimes of Pierre's candidate but just proceeded the canonical victims beginning with Mary Ann Nichols. However, where does that leave Martha Tabram and Emma Smith? Presumably off the list of victims. Not everyone would disagree with that, but weren't they too part of Pierre's list at one point?

Jeff

[John G]

Hi John,

I donīt have a credibility problem since credibility is meaningless for me. I am waiting to give you the ID of the killer until I have the right data source. If I get this, credibility will be a thing of the past in ripperology.

Today I have done some work with a few sources and I have made some progress. I have found some new evidence on a micro level. I am analysing data sources from his life and I think that the so called "Whitehall Mystery" dismemberment murder was his first murder. So it is not the canonical victims first, but a dismemberment murder first and after that it is Polly Nichols. I have also found an interesting fact about his life, connected to his MO. So I am happy today.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I'd already postulated that credibility might be a meaningless concept to you, not least because you seem to prefer the incredible to the credible. Thanks for the confirmation though!

[John G]

I was under the impression that Pierre had included the torso murders among his candidate's killings. Several of these predated the "Whitehall Mystery" death, and if so, it can't be "his first murder". Of course, in "Pierre - speak" "So it is not the canonical victims first, but a dismemberment murder first and after that it is Polly Nichols" may mean the "Whitehall Mystery was not the first of the crimes of Pierre's candidate but just proceeded the canonical victims beginning with Mary Ann Nichols. However, where does that leave Martha Tabram and Emma Smith? Presumably off the list of victims. Not everyone would disagree with that, but weren't they too part of Pierre's list at one point?

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Moreover, not all of the Torso victims were dismembered in the same way, so a scientific approach might lead to the conclusion that there were different perpetrators, i.e. because once a perpetrator had devised an effective strategy for dismembering bodies, why should he deviate from this?

Actually, I've just realised a flaw in my reasoning: I referred to "scientific approach", which probably doesn't apply to Pierre!

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I'd already postulated that credibility might be a meaningless concept to you, not least because you seem to prefer the incredible to the credible. Thanks for the confirmation though!

And for 127 years ripperologists have been trying to make the incredible credible.

Regards Pierre

[John G]

And for 127 years ripperologists have been trying to make the incredible credible.

Regards Pierre

Touche' Pierre! Apologies for the digression, but have you considered a career as a screenwriter or film producer?

Pierre, are you Quentin Tarantino?

[SuspectZero]

And for 127 years ripperologists have been trying to make the incredible credible.

Regards Pierre

That's simply an insulting and pompous remark towards everyone here, Pierre. The vast majority of Ripperologists have done thorough research and have contributed greatly to the understanding of the case. They are, for the most part kind and generous people who are willing to share their information with others in order to help. Many of their theories have strong reasoning applied to them and evidence to back it up.
So far, in your case, you seem to have contributed a lot of questions, very little in the way of answers for your theory and nothing but ridicule for most of the members of this site.

[Elamarna]

I was under the impression that Pierre had included the torso murders among his candidate's killings. Several of these predated the "Whitehall Mystery" death, and if so, it can't be "his first murder". Of course, in "Pierre - speak" "So it is not the canonical victims first, but a dismemberment murder first and after that it is Polly Nichols" may mean the "Whitehall Mystery was not the first of the crimes of Pierre's candidate but just proceeded the canonical victims beginning with Mary Ann Nichols. However, where does that leave Martha Tabram and Emma Smith? Presumably off the list of victims. Not everyone would disagree with that, but weren't they too part of Pierre's list at one point?

Jeff

Jeff

Smith was certainly not, but while Tabram was not on His actual list he was open minded on her:

Thread: I think I have found him post: 585


“It is very difficult to give an opinion on Tabram."

has he now changed his mind.

steve