Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper?

[John G]

I would also because these are individuals who are actually published in forensic psychology/criminology journals.

Also, I tend to find the most trusted JtR books to make an appearance in the journals also as references.

I have seen Sugden, Begg, Rumbelow and Evans referenced this way in these journals for example.

I don't think I will find Alan Moore, Steven Knight or Cornwell being referenced.

So in a way, being referenced by those types of journals, does go a long way towards suggesting some authors are a cut above (no put intended) some others.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't read Moore, Knight or Cornwell. I like Moore (even though he is wrong) because he did a good graphic novel. I like Knight because he is a good laugh. Cornwell I haven't read to be honest but that's because Sickert just sounds like such a 'suspect' driven theory gone bananas.

Anyway, just food for thought.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with you. What I like about Sugden, Begg and Evans is that they focus dispassionately on the reasearch and hard facts, rather than crazy theories and even crazier suspects.

The only two suspect-driven JtR books I've read are Shirley Harrison's, which I didn't particularly enjoy, and Ewan McPherson book about William Bury, which I did enjoy, particularly as it was well researched.

However, ultimately McPherson failed to convince me, especially as Bury doesn't really fit the geo profile, whereas, say, Lechmere, fits it much better.

[John G]

I´d like to think that there is always the possibility of finding new material or solving the old equations in a new manner, thereby finding a worthy suspect. The idea that too long time has passed is something I do not invest in at all, many a case are solved many years after they occurred and there is no limit to the time span possible for such things.
I hope Gray makes the very good case that is available for a common originator of the two murder series, and I hope that if he does, he does not give people a chance to diminish the value of that effort by picking a bad suspect.
David Canter is a criminologist in whom I have never had full confidence myself. Others may disagree, and that is their prerogative.

Well he's certainly got his work cut out trying to convince me that a "common originator" argument works! As you succinctly put it, "two murder series."

Hopefully, this isn't going to ve a book involving rounding up as many possible victims as you can find, and then attributing the murders to one implausible newly discovered super killer.

Personally, I think an academic historian should be focussing on the hard facts of the case. But I guess sensationalism sells, whereas hard facts doesn't. And even newspapers in 1888 had worked that one out.

[Batman]

Personally, I'd like to see a book written by a renowned criminologist, like David Canter, or a forensic expert. But there you go...

I would also because these are individuals who are actually published in forensic psychology/criminology journals.

Also, I tend to find the most trusted JtR books to make an appearance in the journals also as references.

I have seen Sugden, Begg, Rumbelow and Evans referenced this way in these journals for example.

I don't think I will find Alan Moore, Steven Knight or Cornwell being referenced.

So in a way, being referenced by those types of journals, does go a long way towards suggesting some authors are a cut above (no put intended) some others.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't read Moore, Knight or Cornwell. I like Moore (even though he is wrong) because he did a good graphic novel. I like Knight because he is a good laugh. Cornwell I haven't read to be honest but that's because Sickert just sounds like such a 'suspect' driven theory gone bananas.

Anyway, just food for thought.

[Fisherman]

I'm not a big fan of suspect based books, simply because at this juncture I don't think a credible case can be made about any supect. To be fair to Gray, he's been writing JtR articles for a number of years, albeit from a social historian perspective. See:

https://www.northampton.ac.uk/directories/people/drew-gray/

Personally, I'd like to see a book written by a renowned criminologist, like David Canter, or a forensic expert. But there you go...

I´d like to think that there is always the possibility of finding new material or solving the old equations in a new manner, thereby finding a worthy suspect. The idea that too long time has passed is something I do not invest in at all, many a case are solved many years after they occurred and there is no limit to the time span possible for such things.
I hope Gray makes the very good case that is available for a common originator of the two murder series, and I hope that if he does, he does not give people a chance to diminish the value of that effort by picking a bad suspect.
David Canter is a criminologist in whom I have never had full confidence myself. Others may disagree, and that is their prerogative.

[John G]

I'm not a big fan of suspect based books, simply because at this juncture I don't think a credible case can be made about any supect. To be fair to Gray, he's been writing JtR articles for a number of years, albeit from a social historian perspective. See:

https://www.northampton.ac.uk/directories/people/drew-gray/

Personally, I'd like to see a book written by a renowned criminologist, like David Canter, or a forensic expert. But there you go...

[Fisherman]

I wonder if it is going to be said about Drew Gray that he is a nutter who tries to pin each and every murder committed in late 19:th century London on the same man...?

[Fisherman]

Does anyone know if the author/s name a suspect?

What has been gleaned is that Gray claims that the killer was murdering into the early nineties and that he died from disease thereafter.

[Abby Normal]

I do.

However I’ve been sworn to secrecy.

I shall state that Drew and Andy have provided some interesting background research on this suspect.

Monty

ok thanks monty!

[Monty]

Does anyone know if the author/s name a suspect?

I do.

However I’ve been sworn to secrecy.

I shall state that Drew and Andy have provided some interesting background research on this suspect.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

At the conference last week, he gave nothing away at all.
The only comment was he was adding to the list. Which can be interpreted any number of ways.
Listening to his talk again, I am none the wiser Abby


Steve

Ok thanks!

[Elamarna]

Does anyone know if the author/s name a suspect?

At the conference last week, he gave nothing away at all.
The only comment was he was adding to the list. Which can be interpreted any number of ways.
Listening to his talk again, I am none the wiser Abby


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Does anyone know if the author/s name a suspect?

[Monty]

This thread is about what now?

Keep to the topic in hand.

Thanks
Admin

[Elamarna]

You "forgot" that he disagreed with the police. That certainly helped make him a suspect. For starters.

Let's be accurate here, he disagreed with one police officer, not the POLICE, it seems that the POLICE on the whole accepted his version of events, supported by the Police reports.

You also "forgot" that many of the ones positive to the idea of him as the killer are people who have studied the case for decades, not only seen the docu. They watched it with a lot of background knowledge, they did not have your bias and they nevertheless fill many a hand.

Really?

Are you really claiming there are many who have studied the subject in depth, who consider Lechmere a particularly strong suspect?
Not just a viable suspect, that is he cannot be ruled out, like many others, but a strong suspect, likely to be in most people's top 2 or 3?

I know very few who would go that far, many sensibly will say he cannot be ruled out, but that is very different.
My bias has you call it, it simply that I do not think he is particularly strong based on the evidence.

So you were not only not entirely correct on both counts yourself, you were in fact entirely wrong and misleading. And that is all you will hear from me today, I do not have the inclination to engage in twelve hours of porridge-wading by your side.

Not at all, totally correct on both points..

Just repeating the mantra, that Lechmere is the strongest suspect, does not make him so.
Just repeating that many believe he is a strong suspect, does not, I am afraid mean that many do believe that.

The response is what I have come to expect.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Ah, not entirely true on either count.
He did not make himself a suspect at all, all he did was give a name at The inquest, which he was not baptised under, but which he had been officially and legally registered under at least once.
It is modern day researchers whom have promoted him to suspect, that is very simple and very clear. To suggest otherwise is simply to ignore the facts of how the argument for him has developed.

A very common suspect amount students of the case.?
Well yes if we count those who are new to the case or have only watched the misleading, but highly well made documentary.

If we want to say he is commonly spoken about that is true, but the vast majority do not consider him a top suspect at all, indeed many see him purely as a witness.
If we are going to look at those who seriously believe he may be the killer, i wonder if two hands are required to count.

Steve

You "forgot" that he disagreed with the police. That certainly helped make him a suspect. For starters.

You also "forgot" that many of the ones positive to the idea of him as the killer are people who have studied the case for decades, not only seen the docu. They watched it with a lot of background knowledge, they did not have your bias and they nevertheless fill many a hand.

So you were not only not entirely correct on both counts yourself, you were in fact entirely wrong and misleading. And that is all you will hear from me today, I do not have the inclination to engage in twelve hours of porridge-wading by your side.