John Richardson

[Paul Sutton]

One of the many things I love about the Victorians is their sense of humour, especially concerning aggro - or 'beef' as English teenagers now say - a resurrection from my teenage days.

There seem to be so many intractable disagreements here!

Surely a bout of bare-knuckled fisticuffs behind some East End boozer would provide swifter resolution?

I'm myself a complete coward, but would willingly be the bloke with sponge and bucket!

I suggest 'The Blind Beggar', for obvious reasons.

DING, DING...

[Wickerman]

She had bought beer and potatoes, could not afford the price of a bed, and was looking to earn some money quickly in order to accumulate eightpence.

It is very unlikely that she would have bought anything more in the meantime.

She said she was going out looking for custom, thats how she gets her money. Who's to say she wasn't successful?
Can we rule it out?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

She said she was going out looking for custom, thats how she gets her money. Who's to say she wasn't successful?
Can we rule it out?

It is unlikely to have happened.

The evidence suggests it would not have happened.

[Wickerman]

Another case of the unlikely being more likely than the likely?

The realities are, that based on the types of criminals & crimes committed in the late 19th century, it is fair to say his crimes were unpredictable.
Otherwise he would have been caught.
How he killed, where he killed, when he killed, were all in each case unlikely.

[Paul Sutton]

The realities are, that based on the types of criminals & crimes committed in the late 19th century, it is fair to say his crimes were unpredictable.
Otherwise he would have been caught.
How he killed, where he killed, when he killed, were all in each case unlikely.

The crux of this is that his crimes were unpredictable and unlikely - for the reasons you list above.

But his actions on the job were careful, planned and (especially for Eddowes) done very well.

He acted rationally within (to us) a wildly irrational act.

I'm reminded of the narrator in Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart.

His rationalisation is utterly convincing, of why he chopped-up the poor old man. That's why the story works so well.

[A P Tomlinson]

It kind of looks that way doesn't it. I don't remember anyone pointing that out before.

I'd never thought about it until you pointed out that pretty specific stance he took.

Maybe he was just being hyperbolic?
Maybe someone came up to him afterward and said, "So you don't think that stuff in Goulston Street was.." and he just slapped his forehead and said the Victorian equivalent of "Oh, Bollocks!"

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It also kind of throws the grafitto out as a "clue" in his opinion. If they considered that the killer had effectively signed his work... surely that would fall under the heading of "...clue being supplied by the criminal..."

Chief Inspector Henry Moore and Sir Robert Anderson, both from Scotland Yard, thought that the graffito was the work of the murderer (Sugden, p. 254).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulst...o#cite_note-16

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver.

The first one must be in the press, I have not renewed my membership of B.N.A. yet so can't look it up.
The second point is to be found in the Press Reports here on Casebook.

"And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

It's easy to find due to the unique word 'sequestrated', there's only one example of that. Although it is a genuine word I think the press made a spelling mistake for sequestered. Both words exist in The Dictionary of the English Language, 1881.

Thank you. Between that and the police asking for Lawende's description to not be made public at the inquest, it seems the police were very confident that Lawende had gotten a a good look at the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

[Wickerman;n823473]

Hmm, but you're not on tik-tok - are you familiar with the phrase "when in Rome....."?

I don't like to use them, but you've already established the fact you can't read the intent of a post by assuming negativity when it was not intended. A last resort would be to use a smiley face, I'm thinking you may understand that.
Perhaps there's just no pleasing some people...


[Note to self..never use smilies with Mr Sutton]
Ok. got it.

Well, if you're taking requests, then it's Dr Sutton MA (Oxon), DPhil (Oxon).

Now that seems pompous, but I think it's time. (SMILEY FACE AND UNFUNNY EMOJO OF SOMEONE GRINNING).

No-one asked for your profession, a number of us have professions, or in my case 'had' a profession, now I'm happily retired but why does that matter?
Are we concerned about our grasp of the English language, our ability with math, the square footage of our homes?
I did wonder why you so readily threw your lot in with Trevor, it was because he claimed a profession in the police - not anything to do with his knowledge of the case?
A retired Westinghouse Engineer may not rate so high in your neighbourhood, but I'll do my best not to disappoint......

[A P Tomlinson]

So if she’d eaten something that no one has suggested that she’d eaten then we would have expected to have read of it in Phillips report?

Likewise if she’d eaten a seven course meal. And if she’d eaten a Lamb Vindaloo the smell would have been present.

But if she’d eaten a crust of bread….

OR... if the killer had, for example, grabbed the small intestine and severed it at around the mesenteric fold, (in order to make removing the intestine from the cavity easier,) the food that was on its way up there would have been squeezed back into the stomach. And when the intestine was severed, then more detritus, that had not been able to force its way back into the stomach, would be deposited into the mess that was the cavity.

George picked me up on something I wasn't entirely specific on a point earlier. The stomach would have been one of the first things to be punctured when a 5-6 inch blade was thrust home just below the sternum and dragged rather brutally downward. So any bits of food that appeared in that mess would have most likely been attibuted to the stomach rather than being considered detritus from the subsequent severing of the intestine.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thank you. Between that and the police asking for Lawende's description to not be made public at the inquest, it seems the police were very confident that Lawende had gotten a a good look at the Ripper.

the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer

(Sir Robert Anderson)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please stop writing identical posts - # 6634, # 6637 and # 6640 being identical.

I suggest that as you cannot refute the points I made in # 6627 and # 6633, you do what you did when I refuted your claim about Piser and stop replying.

Can you guess what I’m thinking?

[Wickerman]

What makes you think that I meant that I was quoting from the press?

If you look at # 6393, you will see that I was not quoting anything.

Don't you remember reading that I asked if you were sure those quotes were attributed to you, as I don't know which post they came from?
Ok, we got out hairs crossed, lets just drop it and carry on with the case?

[Paul Sutton]

No-one asked for your profession, a number of us have professions, or in my case 'had' a profession, now I'm happily retired but why does that matter?
Are we concerned about our grasp of the English language, our ability with math, the square footage of our homes?
I did wonder why you so readily threw your lot in with Trevor, it was because he claimed a profession in the police - not anything to do with his knowledge of the case?
A retired Westinghouse Engineer may not rate so high in your neighbourhood, but I'll do my best not to disappoint......

Touchy!

No one asked you to post a tedious link to some article on risk, or deliver lectures, yet you do - and for free!

The word is 'maths' - not 'math'.

Now, one can tolerate some tourist spluttering and barging around, claiming ownership, acting like some Overlord. But there's a limit!

You've slated some ex-British cop, but scream when put in your place. I think his ideas are wrong, but you have constantly insulted him, whilst acting like John-Boy Walton in piety. Your attacks on him are ad-hom and nasty.

One can only imagine how some blustering countryman of yours would react, if some Limey were laying down the law, lecturing some NY ex-cop.

I think many of the best Ripperologists have been American/non-British. Why not study them and follow their lead? Don't misunderstand British reserve for acceptance. We put up with a lot of patronisation, but tend to have the last laugh.

SMILEY FACE!

[Herlock Sholmes]

OR... if the killer had, for example, grabbed the small intestine and severed it at around the mesenteric fold, (in order to make removing the intestine from the cavity easier,) the food that was on its way up there would have been squeezed back into the stomach. And when the intestine was severed, then more detritus, that had not been able to force its way back into the stomach, would be deposited into the mess that was the cavity.

George picked me up on something I wasn't entirely specific on a point earlier. The stomach would have been one of the first things to be punctured when a 5-6 inch blade was thrust home just below the sternum and dragged rather brutally downward. So any bits of food that appeared in that mess would have most likely been attibuted to the stomach rather than being considered detritus from the subsequent severing of the intestine.

Sounds plausible AP. But it would be good to hear a medical opinion.