the locked door

[John Wheat]

Again I have to Disagree.

Again I have to disagree if the Ripper was interupted when murdering Stride then why would his M.O. not be the same for Stride his interuption would mean he wasn't able to carry out his full M.O. You mention being pertinent with the facts. The facts are that the experts disagreed about the level of medical skill the Ripper demonstrated. Often two experts disagreed with the level of skill shown in the same murder I'm talking about experts in 1888. But also this applies to experts in present day. Also the Torso Killers M.O. is very different to the Rippers M.O. and a flexible M.O. as you say would not cover this. Although I would argue that a developing M.O. rather than a flexible M.O. applies to the Ripper and indeed pretty much every serial killer the Zodiac Killer being an exception as his M.O. was a changing M.O.

[perrymason]

Again I have to disagree if the Ripper was interupted when murdering Stride then why would his M.O. not be the same for Stride his interuption would mean he wasn't able to carry out his full M.O. You mention being pertinent with the facts. The facts are that the experts disagreed about the level of medical skill the Ripper demonstrated. Often two experts disagreed with the level of skill shown in the same murder I'm talking about experts in 1888. But also this applies to experts in present day. Also the Torso Killers M.O. is very different to the Rippers M.O. and a flexible M.O. as you say would not cover this. Although I would argue that a developing M.O. rather than a flexible M.O. applies to the Ripper and indeed pretty much every serial killer the Zodiac Killer being an exception as his M.O. was a changing M.O.

When I look at the murder at the end of August and the next at end of the first week in September I see exactly what the medical authorities did....a man who killed women so he could access their abdominal organs. He failed in front of houses, he succeeded 10 days later behind them.

Liz Stride was found dead and untouched. How is there any evidence of interruption there? Nothing shows "interruption" about Liz, and theres not a fleeing man out the gates.....so, where did he go when Diemshutz pulls in, why would he cut her at all when the cart and horse are audibly approaching on cobblestones, what happened to Broadshouldered Man, if she is with a stranger being threatened then whats with the cashous...there is a goodly size list that could accompany those points.

Suffice to say, as I did before, you are entitled to see whatever you believe you see there...if you see a serial killer of 5, then your in the majority. Thats not saying its a done deal though.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Majorities

I'm also in a large majority of Ripperologists who have speculated that the Ripper was interupted in the act of killing Stride. Also I haven't totally ruled at Tabram as a Ripper suspect.

[perrymason]

I'm also in a large majority of Ripperologists who have speculated that the Ripper was interupted in the act of killing Stride. Also I haven't totally ruled at Tabram as a Ripper suspect.

Hi John,

Well, I didnt know you were a "Ripperologist", Im certainly not, so perhaps I should re-think my position.

Having done so, ....I would guess that makes you one of many incapable of making an argument that supports an interruption in the murder of Liz Stride that uses actual evidence, and one of a lesser number who imagines that the fully formed MO that was used with Polly was discovered, refined and perfected in 3 weeks time. Without intervening victims or trials.

You see my point Im sure.

Disagree with anything or anyone, but know that most here will not fall off their horses startled when you do.
Lets keep the implied " Thats fine but I know better" in the holster ok? You havent drawn against me before....and Im not even the fastest draw here pardner.

Best regards John

[John Wheat]

Fastdraw Tomfoolery

It was yourself who first mentioned majorities. As for all this fast draw tomfoolery I think it's irrelevant. I'm sure there are people who can out argue me, doesn't mean there right, doesn't mean I'm right.

[perrymason]

It was yourself who first mentioned majorities. As for all this fast draw tomfoolery I think it's irrelevant. I'm sure there are people who can out argue me, doesn't mean there right, doesn't mean I'm right.

Hi John, Perhaps I misread your intent, and I quite obviously agree, the number of people who agree with you has nothing to do with your potential to be correct. Having said that, when experts in a given area of study disagree with you, and you are less knowledgeable than they are of all the relevant facts about people, places and things that matter in these cases, you should entertain the possibility you are missing something. Im not the expert Im speaking about, Im just an avid student, but if you approach subjects with finite absolute solution ideas based upon the known data you will go astray.

In these cases, you will encounter people who have decades of study into the crimes, the times, the people, landscape and the potential fuses. For them, proof is everything....conjecture is just entertainment.

And I can tell you that a senior scholar in this field, in my estimation perhaps the single greatest source of information on these crimes and the police investigations of them, has stated on this site that in 50 plus years of study, he has never been personally satisfied that there was enough evidence to attribute 2, perhaps 3, of the Canonical Group to Jack the Ripper. Sobering comment I think.

In Ripperology, conjecture is the only way to mount a case for a killer who was nicknamed Jack. We dont have any victim that we can say for sure was dispatched by the man they called The Whitechapel/Spitalfields Murderer, then Leather Apron, then Jack the Ripper. We only know when killings that would fit with a killer of that nickname began. Sometime in August of 88. And when the nickname was given to him that we still use today, in a probable hoax letter dated Sept 27th, after 2 murders that match each other almost to the letter in MO, and victims that were both "ripped".

This thread concerns the issues regarding Marys lost key and the locked door in Millers court with a woman inside mutilated.

That fact alone is proof positive that if Mary was killed by Jack, then he must have changed his MO. Ingress/Egress was never an issue, and he never prohibited the next passer by from finding a mutilated woman. Locking the door behind him in this case is exactly that.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

My thoughts are based on a number of years studying aspects of the Ripper case and also studying info by experts with knowledge of a similar level to whoever you are talking about. Also just because someone has studied the Ripper crimes for years and years does not mean there correct in all matters. And experts such as Rumbelow and Beadle don't agree on everything and they can't all be right all the time. And there are books written by so called experts that are full of stupid theories based on the flimsiest of evidence. I have my own ideas about who the Ripper was based on psych profiling, facts and evidence which is backed up by info from experts in medicine, psych profiling and the Jack the Ripper Case as a whole who have years and years of experience. Also I do not claim to know who for example the third witness to see Annie Millwood the day before she was killed or whatever off by heart. Nor am I particularly interested in knowing the slightest detail about some alleged susdpect championed by some idiot to sell a book. There seems to be a stupid attitude by some that knowing everything about the most minor and generally speaking irrelevant suspects where there is no evidence that they were in England let alone London, let alone Whitechapel, let alone there being any evidence they were the Ripper is vital to the Ripper case. Also I don't subscribe to the notion that knowing every minor aspect of suspects with no evidence whatsoever to suggest they were the Ripper is more important than actually looking at evidence of plausable suspects and theories. I would also say that the killing of Mary Jane Kelly shows a developing M.O. and I think you'll find many of the experts with years of knowledge would agree with me on this point.

[John Wheat]

Experts

My thoughts are based on a number of years studying aspects of the Ripper case and also studying info by experts with knowledge of a similar level to whoever you are talking about. Also just because someone has studied the Ripper crimes for years and years does not mean there correct in all matters. And experts such as Rumbelow and Beadle don't agree on everything and they can't all be right all the time. And there are books written by so called experts that are full of stupid theories based on the flimsiest of evidence. I have my own ideas about who the Ripper was based on psych profiling, facts and evidence which is backed up by info from experts in medicine, psych profiling and the Jack the Ripper Case as a whole who have years and years of experience. Also I do not claim to know who for example the third witness to see Annie Millwood the day before she was killed or whatever off by heart. Nor am I particularly interested in knowing the slightest detail about some alleged susdpect championed by some idiot to sell a book. There seems to be a stupid attitude by some that knowing everything about the most minor and generally speaking irrelevant suspects where there is no evidence that they were in England let alone London, let alone Whitechapel, let alone there being any evidence they were the Ripper is vital to the Ripper case. Also I don't subscribe to the notion that knowing every minor aspect of suspects with no evidence whatsoever to suggest they were the Ripper is more important than actually looking at evidence of plausable suspects and theories. I would also say that the killing of Mary Jane Kelly shows a developing M.O. and I think you'll find many of the experts with years of knowledge would agree with me on this point.

[Sam Flynn]

In Ripperology, conjecture is the only way to mount a case for a killer who was nicknamed Jack.

Reasoned conjecture, surely, Mike - based on the concrete evidence that has survived, and taking the bigger picture into account at all times.

Anyhow, about this locked door... I prefer to keep mine open

[perrymason]

John, I can tell you this... you are in for an interesting time here.

Sam, fair point...but reason doesnt enter into it when assigning Liz Stride to the Canonicals....so speculation and conjecture is a huge part of these cases.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

speculation and conjecture is a huge part of these cases.

I was agreeing with you, Mike, and still do My specific point was that speculation that isn't truly logical and firmly based on the facts is worthless.