The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Mutilating serial killers being motivated chiefly by monetary gain is practically unheard of.

It doesn't need to be common. The Whitechapel murders were unique, opportunistic and motiveless.
The crimes of Burke and Hare were unique, opportunistic and motiveless.

In this context 'motive' is not something directly associated with the victim, like love, hate, revenge, or a mugging, etc.

This is what the result can be when the motivation is merely monetary gain.
The market for such an organ is not required, in fact that realization may be the prime reason the murders ended.

I'm not defending the theory by any means, merely pointing out it cannot be so readily dismissed, the perpetrator was after all unbalanced.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben

We know what 500 candle power looks like, because it is available for viewing in two separate videos

But that would only tell us about what the camera can see. We can't rely on a video to understand the potential of a human eye/brain combo under such circumstances.

[Wickerman]

Take that clip, reduce its "illuminating" power by half, and that's what Hutchinson would have been relying on for his red hanky sighting from 125 feet away (thanks again, Jon!).

You're welcome Ben.
Though there wasn't a hundred and twenty five feet between them when he passed under his nose outside the Queens Head.

[Abby Normal]

Not to stray too far off-topic, Tecs, but such is the similarity between the ripper's crimes and those of known serial killers acting out of a desire for personal gratification (usually sexual) that any other suggested "motive" must be considered extremely unlikely, in my opinion. On this point, at least, there appears to be no dispute amongst the criminology experts who have studied the case - Douglas, Keppel.

Mutilating serial killers being motivated chiefly by monetary gain is practically unheard of.

All the best,
Ben

as usual that's a great point Ben.

[Tecs]

Not to stray too far off-topic, Tecs, but such is the similarity between the ripper's crimes and those of known serial killers acting out of a desire for personal gratification (usually sexual) that any other suggested "motive" must be considered extremely unlikely, in my opinion. On this point, at least, there appears to be no dispute amongst the criminology experts who have studied the case - Douglas, Keppel.

Mutilating serial killers being motivated chiefly by monetary gain is practically unheard of.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The first thing I would say is that we have to be very careful when taking expert opinion as the end of the matter. I'm not sure if it was Douglas or Keppel themselves but certainly their ilk got the Washington sniper totally wrong. The psychiatrists who assessed Sutcliffe said that he was a paranoid schizophrenic which the jury, correctly in my opinion, disagreed with (even without the extra evidence that came to light later that supported him simply being an evil sexually motivated killer.)

But that leads on to a fascinating point. In my opinion there is no real expert on this. Although there are parallels there are no real murderers that compare with JTR. He was part serial killer, part spree killer and a whole load of bits inbetween! What I mean is, serial killers usually have a "reign" that lasts for years, BTK, Green River, Yorkshire Ripper etc or they go on a spree Michael Ryan, Dunblane etc. But JTR seems to be a bit of both. He came out of nowhere, blitzed the area for 10 weeks and then dissapeared. Bit more than a spree, but not really a reign either. To me that suggests something a bit different than most. (Unless he just went under the wheels of a carriage on 10th November!)



regards,

[Tecs]

Hi Tecs
I don't think its that far out either. as a matter of fact Ive put the idea out there that Tumbety was the American dr looking for specimans that Baxter alluded to at the inquest. Perhaps him and Chapman being in the "medical" field hooked up and Dr T was paying him to get the said specimans.

of course its total speculation and dosnt explain all the peripheral cuts and mutilations the ripper did. and of course we are totally off topic. but to reel it back in I don't think Abberlines theory is so off the mark.

I usually agree with Ben 98% of the time but not on this one. Dr T or not, someone may(Very slight may I admit) have paid chapman to do it, or someone else. I doubt it but not so far fetched I think.

Hi Abby,

Imagine if Tumblety used the alias Pedachenko!!!

I've often wondered if Tumblety was the American doctor too and if so, and we assume he wasn't the ripper, he would need an accomplice. I agree with you, it's an underconsidered angle.


regards,

[Ben]

Not to stray too far off-topic, Tecs, but such is the similarity between the ripper's crimes and those of known serial killers acting out of a desire for personal gratification (usually sexual) that any other suggested "motive" must be considered extremely unlikely, in my opinion. On this point, at least, there appears to be no dispute amongst the criminology experts who have studied the case - Douglas, Keppel.

Mutilating serial killers being motivated chiefly by monetary gain is practically unheard of.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben/all.

I've made the following point before but for some reason people don't seem to understand and instantly go back to the scenario described above.

Basically, I don't think that Chapman was working on commission from an organ harvester at all but is it possible that an avaricious individual who had training in using a knife (whatever level that might be!) could hear on the grapevine that samples of the uterus were worth a small fortune and then take it upon themselves to use their skills to go and get some?

I've always been surprised how quickly people dismiss any version of the organ harvester theory, after all a man turns up offering Ģ20 for samples of the uterus, then a few weeks later bodies start turning up in the street with that organ missing, or obvious attempts to get them. Didn't happen before, didn't happen after the "Autumn of Terror."

Who could say for certain there's no link?


regards,

Hi Tecs
I don't think its that far out either. as a matter of fact Ive put the idea out there that Tumbety was the American dr looking for specimans that Baxter alluded to at the inquest. Perhaps him and Chapman being in the "medical" field hooked up and Dr T was paying him to get the said specimans.

of course its total speculation and dosnt explain all the peripheral cuts and mutilations the ripper did. and of course we are totally off topic. but to reel it back in I don't think Abberlines theory is so off the mark.

I usually agree with Ben 98% of the time but not on this one. Dr T or not, someone may(Very slight may I admit) have paid chapman to do it, or someone else. I doubt it but not so far fetched I think.

[Tecs]

and secondly, Abberline had "no problem" with the idea that Klosowski the Ripper acted on an prostitute organ-harvesting commission from an American doctor, and crossed the Atlantic to commit more crimes having failed to secure enough innards for his boss in London.

Does that mean we should likewise have "no problem" with that theory?

Hi Ben/all.

I've made the following point before but for some reason people don't seem to understand and instantly go back to the scenario described above.

Basically, I don't think that Chapman was working on commission from an organ harvester at all but is it possible that an avaricious individual who had training in using a knife (whatever level that might be!) could hear on the grapevine that samples of the uterus were worth a small fortune and then take it upon themselves to use their skills to go and get some?

I've always been surprised how quickly people dismiss any version of the organ harvester theory, after all a man turns up offering Ģ20 for samples of the uterus, then a few weeks later bodies start turning up in the street with that organ missing, or obvious attempts to get them. Didn't happen before, didn't happen after the "Autumn of Terror."

Who could say for certain there's no link?


regards,

[Ben]

The argument that we must treat a claim as accurate because "Abberline had no problem with it" is actually a very bad one, when you mull it over properly. Firstly, the account was discredited shortly after its author first submitted it, which would not have occurred had Abberline continued to have "no problem" with it, and secondly, Abberline had "no problem" with the idea that Klosowski the Ripper acted on an prostitute organ-harvesting commission from an American doctor, and crossed the Atlantic to commit more crimes having failed to secure enough innards for his boss in London.

Does that mean we should likewise have "no problem" with that theory?

[Ben]

But Ben, every instance of your imaginings will be on the lower side of reality, likewise, anyone viewing the lamp as brighter will imagine on the higher side.

No "imaginings" are required, Jon.

We know what 500 candle power looks like, because it is available for viewing in two separate videos, taken just a few feet away from the light source, as opposed to over 100 feet away from it as Hutchinson claimed to be. Its illuminating potential need not be speculated over because we know precisely what it looks like.

We also know that the "500 candle power" on display in those videos represented the very best one could possibly have achieved in terms of gas lighting on the streets of London in 1888, and that "Hutchinson's lamp" would have been considerably weaker than that.

In other words, the lamp in question was even weaker than the piddle-poor illuminating "power" of the lamp featured in the video.

You have no intention of accepting there was a light available within a few feet that "could" have helped Hutchinson see what he claimed to see.

You're right, Jon, I have no such intention; not when the physical evidence impels me, as it should you, towards the opposite conclusion. We should have no recourse to our "imagininigs" when we can use our eyes.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

What you seem to think I donīt remember is exactly what I pointed out in my post - the Bray lamp was too expensive, and so the authorities did not buy it, or any other of the powerful gas lamps constructed to meet the threat from the electric lamps.

Did you not read that? Or did you forget that you had read it? Or what?

On the contrary, Fisherman, I digested it, understood it, agreed with it.

Yes, the Bray lamp was "too expensive" on account of its superior candle power, and thus not utilised for mass production on the streets of London at that time, but if we have physical evidence of just how "powerful" that "too expensive" lamp was, i.e. pitifully not so, then just what are we to make of the illuminating potential of the Miller's Court lamp, which, thanks to your repeated assurances, we may assume to have been considerably dimmer even than that?

Take that clip, reduce its "illuminating" power by half, and that's what Hutchinson would have been relying on for his red hanky sighting from 125 feet away (thanks again, Jon!).

You produced the Youtube clip of a Bray lamp as an example of how poorly the gas lamps of the East End lighted the streets.

But the Bray lamp was not in existence on the East End streets of 1888.

Yes, exactly....because it was too expensive on account of its power.

I did indeed provide a youtube clip of a lamp that could not have been of the type that was attached to the Miller's Court entrance, and yes, it is indeed "unviable" because it was much more powerful than the lamp in question. And yet, this "much more powerful" light, as we see from the two clips, is insufficient to illuminate objects over a few feet away, and even makes the surrounding vegetation appear less distinct that it does in no artificial light at all.

You are even at liberty to claim that I cannot resist answering you.

Try it, Ben - and you will be factually incorrect again.

Okay, I'll try: You cannot resist answering me.

All the best,
Ben

[DJA]

Abberline apparently saw no cause to question it.

That is part of my concern.

[DJA]

If it was impossible to discern colours under gas lighting, does that mean any other witnesses who described red clothing were also lying?

Hot question from someone with the surname Rogan.

[Wickerman]

The questions are,where exactly was it and could a handkerchief be discerned as being red?

In all honesty, that is a question we cannot answer today.
What we are able to do is accept there was a lamp nearby, so any modern hypothesis that "it must have been too dark" is rendered illegitimate.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing, "yes, there was a lamp, but it was still too dark". Such an argument comes across as a refusal to accept Hutchinson's words at any cost.

We can see the lamps, one was described as "within a yard or two", and Abberline apparently saw no cause to question it.
We have no evidence to the contrary.