Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Fisherman]

I'm not saying that any of the medicos were correct or incorrect. Unlike yourself, I don't cherry pick the e evidence in order to support a weak theory.

So all of your efforts to prove that Kelly was a sloppy killing whereas Eddowes and Chapman were not, were in total and utter vain?

Me oh my, am I SURPRISED!!

If you were a better judge of theories, you would have something going for you, but no....

[John G]

Apologies, but I think Fisherman might have got the phrase from me, John. A few years back, I found that some contemporary newspaper reports gave details of Annie's flaps (not a phrase I use often!) and drew folks' attention to them here. Not a medical term, as Fish points out, but shorthand for "flaps of flesh removed from the abdominal wall".I notice Fisherman hasn't answered this, because I don't think he can; not that I blame him. For years, many have assumed that Dr Phillips was the originator of the "one sweep of the knife" comment, but there's no evidence that he was. On the contrary, it seems to have been a neat bit of writing by a Lancet staffer.

Thanks Gareth. I fear that Fisherman is doing is reputation tremendous harm by advocating what I consider to be a bizarre theory, i.e. that all of the Torso victims- including the 1873 Battersea and 1874 Putney ones- were killed by the same person responsible for all of the C5 murders. Oh, and that person had exceptional knife skills. And, of course, the name of this master criminal was: Lechmere!

In advocating this theory he totally igonores the fact that Kelly was not eviscerated by a perpetrator demonstrating any kind of skill whatsoever: see, for example, the opinions of Dr Bond, and Dr Phillips who, at the Pinchin Street inquest described her injuries as "most wanton". Why? Because apparently she was cut up into "sections" like the Torso victims. I mean, never mind the fact that her killer wasn't attempting to dismember the body, and most likely subjected her to a completely frenzied, and uncontrolled assault. No, wherever Fish finds the words "flaps" or "sections" in an autopsy report he assumes there is a link.

That is not to say, of course, that there may not have been some similarities in the way that the Torso victims were dismembered. However, as,Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist, points out, "If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them...When disposing of a body....people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar! (Marriott, 2013).

Fish's theory also ignores other obvious facts. Thus, Torso Man, if he existed, was clearly a commuter killer; hence the fact that body parts turned up all over London. He must also have had access to a dismemberment site and to transport.

In contrast, JtR, if he existed, was obviously a marauder, whose activities were focused on an extremely small geographical area, suggesting that he was a local man, with local knowledge, who didn't have access to transport.

And then there's the important fact that Torso Man took extraordinary steps to prevent his victims from being identified, i.e. none of the victims heads were ever located, and only Liz Jackson was ever identified, and then only fortuitously.

In stark contrast, JtR made no attempts to hide his victims identity-unless you accept the MJK conspiracy theory- and was therefore a great deal less organized.

But there's no use explaining all of this to Fish, because he's injudiciously nailed his colours firmly to the mast-just like Pierre , or anyone else over the years who's had a grand theory-and his reputation, I'm afraid, must take the full brunt of the consequences.

[Fisherman]

No harm in being ill-informed and slow on the uptake, John. As long as you donīt flaunt it, that is.

Letīs look at a few of your "points", just for jolly!

1/ You say that Kelly was killed by a perpetrator with no skills whatsoever. Thatīs just plain dumb, since you know quite well that Kelly had her kidneys removed in the exact fashion that Brown deemed skilled in the Eddowes case. And have you asked yourself why the killer needed to be skilled in order to fit the torso case? What kind of skill was displayed in those cases? Iīll tell you: knife skills. Cutting skills.
Did you notice that Kellys breasts were taken away with circular cuts? It takes a bit of knife skills to do that.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "wanton", by the way? It means something that causes sexual arousal. Can you tell me why a sexually aroused person could not be a skilled person? Donīt think of yourself now, John - I mean generally speaking.

2. You stupendeously quote Biggs on how dismembered victims look, without acknowledging that he said that they are ALL sloppy deeds. Biggs had no more of an idea about the Thames torso murders when he made his comment than you have about which theories are good and which are bad. You are therefore quoting ignorance, John. Biggs was out of his depth totally when making his comment.

3. You are trying to establish that a killer cannot kill in two zones, one small and one larger one.
Good luck with that one!

4. You are claiming that the torso killer tried to hide the identititíes of his victims - as if you have never been told that this killer DISPLAYED his victims, that he placed body parts from one victim in the victims own clothing, that he left moles and marks on the bodies, that he supplied a full, cut-away face - and that the heads that you think were hidden may have been tossed in the Thames with the rest of the parts, sinking as quickly and deeply as your reputation as a useful poster.

5. You state that my reputation must take the full brunt of the consequences of having presented my theory. I should bloody well hope so! Your misgivings about it is something I do not care a bit about - you have travelled asswards on the threads before, and seeing you pass bottom first along this thread too was always in the cards.
All I have to do now is to decide whether to put my trust in you, or in people like for example Debra Arif, who sees the identification as a very clear possibility. It involves the hard task of weighing her experience and knowledge against yours.

Let me see now, who is the more read up poster? Who has the better grip on the two cases, John or Debra, Debra or John...? I must take real good care not to forget how you repeatedly quote Trevor Marriott to prove your points, whereas Debra makes do without that support.

Nope. Canīt decide. I need to sleep on it. You are too close to tell apart tonight. Maybe tomorrow!

[Sam Flynn]

In contrast, JtR, if he existed, was obviously a marauder, whose activities were focused on an extremely small geographical area, suggesting that he was a local man, with local knowledge, who didn't have access to transport.

I agree 100% with each of those points. We'd do well to remember them.

[Fisherman]

I agree 100% with each of those points. We'd do well to remember them.

I am slightly less impressed myself:

In contrast, JtR, if he existed, was obviously a marauder

A marauder is somebody who actively goes around in search of prey. While I believe that was so, it has been thrown forward that the killer could have suffered from psychotic episodes, and since that cannot be ruled out, there goes the "obviously".

whose activities were focused on an extremely small geographical area

Whose suggested activities were focused on a small geographical area. But since we do not know who he was, he may well have killed or attacked elsewhere, far from that small (not extremely small) area.

suggesting that he was a local man with local knowledge

The best point - this is clearly suggested, but no certainty.

who didn't have access to transport

Because if you DO, you will inevitably NOT kill in your comfort zone, but instead travel to Coventry?
Clearly, this point is a very bad one.
"Transport" at this stage and time of night would have been a cab ("Driver, could you stop here while I cut up that prossie?" or "Never you mind about the blood and the knife, Cabbie. The kidney? None of your business!") or a horse-drawn carriage of his own, a vehicle that would not have helped obscure what was going on. Was he supposed to clippety-clop down Hanbury Street, park his cart, whisker Chapman away into the backyard, and then get up and away? Oh wait - that was not the whole suggestion: he needed to go to Coventry first!
Or is the suggestion that he would have picked up the dead bodies in his cart and driven THEM to Coventry?

The whole concept of killing in the open streets would more or less predispose that the killer travelled on foot, the way I see it. It would provide the best and most silent approach, he could search the streets for victims without scrambling lap after lap around the blocks in a carriage, and he could silently sneak away after the deeds.

The torso deeds were another matter - that series was NOT performed on the open streets, but it remains that the victims as such could have been fetched in the exact same area as the five so called canonicals. They could have been sought out by a killer travelling on foot, taken to a bolthole and dispatched there, offering the opportunity to go a lot further with a lot more time with the victims. But it would have involved the task to remove the bodies afterwards, since a bolthole can always be tied to those who use it. To that end, the killer needed transport. Otherwise, we just dont know.
And once the body parts were to be removed, the soundest thing to do would be to take them far afield, covering the tracks leading to the bolthole behind him.

[Fisherman]

Iīve slept on it now, John. And I have had some port.

Iīm gonna go with Debra.

[Pierre]

Thanks Gareth. I fear that Fisherman is doing is reputation tremendous harm by advocating what I consider to be a bizarre theory, i.e. that all of the Torso victims- including the 1873 Battersea and 1874 Putney ones- were killed by the same person responsible for all of the C5 murders. Oh, and that person had exceptional knife skills. And, of course, the name of this master criminal was: Lechmere!

In advocating this theory he totally igonores the fact that Kelly was not eviscerated by a perpetrator demonstrating any kind of skill whatsoever: see, for example, the opinions of Dr Bond, and Dr Phillips who, at the Pinchin Street inquest described her injuries as "most wanton". Why? Because apparently she was cut up into "sections" like the Torso victims. I mean, never mind the fact that her killer wasn't attempting to dismember the body, and most likely subjected her to a completely frenzied, and uncontrolled assault. No, wherever Fish finds the words "flaps" or "sections" in an autopsy report he assumes there is a link.

That is not to say, of course, that there may not have been some similarities in the way that the Torso victims were dismembered. However, as,Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist, points out, "If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them...When disposing of a body....people tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment/transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar! (Marriott, 2013).

Fish's theory also ignores other obvious facts. Thus, Torso Man, if he existed, was clearly a commuter killer; hence the fact that body parts turned up all over London. He must also have had access to a dismemberment site and to transport.

In contrast, JtR, if he existed, was obviously a marauder, whose activities were focused on an extremely small geographical area, suggesting that he was a local man, with local knowledge, who didn't have access to transport.

And then there's the important fact that Torso Man took extraordinary steps to prevent his victims from being identified, i.e. none of the victims heads were ever located, and only Liz Jackson was ever identified, and then only fortuitously.

In stark contrast, JtR made no attempts to hide his victims identity-unless you accept the MJK conspiracy theory- and was therefore a great deal less organized.

But there's no use explaining all of this to Fish, because he's injudiciously nailed his colours firmly to the mast-just like Pierre , or anyone else over the years who's had a grand theory-and his reputation, I'm afraid, must take the full brunt of the consequences.

Hi John,

There are important differences between Fisherman and me and you should be able to recognize these differences.

1. I have not named any person - for ethical reasons. Fisherman has.
2. I have no "grand theory". Fisherman has.
3. I take responsibility for the "consequences" everyday by avoiding the two problems of 1 and 2 above. Fisherman doesnīt.

As you understand,

A) it is a serious thing to accuse a dead person of being Jack the Ripper. I will not go into all the complications now, but of course there are many.

B) Grand theories must be avoided in the Whitechapel murders case, since the murders are part of the past and the past is not sufficient to create theories, but you must have sources. Very often these sources are sparse. So what you do is research based on small pieces of data from the past. They are often just sufficient to induce and to construct hypotheses. The hypotheses function as a "vaccine" against the wrong conclusions, since they are testable!

C) I have, thanks to the method of using hypotheses, made a little progress in my research yesterday. I was about to dismiss the hypothesis but made a very small pilot study and now I have to keep it. It is not "progress" because I can not refute the hypothesis, but it is a little progress since I had a difficult problem with some data. I hope I have solved this problem now, we will see.

Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Hi John,

There are important differences between Fisherman and me and you should be able to recognize these differences.

1. I have not named any person - for ethical reasons. Fisherman has.
2. I have no "grand theory". Fisherman has.
3. I take responsibility for the "consequences" everyday by avoiding the two problems of 1 and 2 above. Fisherman doesnīt.

As you understand,

A) it is a serious thing to accuse a dead person of being Jack the Ripper. I will not go into all the complications now, but of course there are many.

B) Grand theories must be avoided in the Whitechapel murders case, since the murders are part of the past and the past is not sufficient to create theories, but you must have sources. Very often these sources are sparse. So what you do is research based on small pieces of data from the past. They are often just sufficient to induce and to construct hypotheses. The hypotheses function as a "vaccine" against the wrong conclusions, since they are testable!

C) I have, thanks to the method of using hypotheses, made a little progress in my research yesterday. I was about to dismiss the hypothesis but made a very small pilot study and now I have to keep it. It is not "progress" because I can not refute the hypothesis, but it is a little progress since I had a difficult problem with some data. I hope I have solved this problem now, we will see.

Pierre

You have not named a person for reasons of cowardice. Or because you don't have a suspect. Ethics is the figleaf behind which you hide your cowardice.

You don't have a "grand theory", you have a stupid theory.

You don't have "sources", you look for hidden, coded clues in irrelevant letters in newspapers. Amateur ripperologist, not historian.

Hypotheses are indeed testable, and the reason you are so reluctant to share yours here is that every time you do so they are proven beyond doubt to be absolute rubbish.

Still posturing and posing, but everyone has seen through you, oaf.

[Fisherman]

Whoa, Henry!

Is that a way to treat an ethical, responsible and discerning historian, who has furthermore solved the Ripper case?

Surely I am the oneīs throat you should aim for, wretched accuser of innocent people and immoral, irresponsible theorist that I am?

Why chomp off a large bit of mother Teresas innocent butt when my guilty posterior is there to chew away at...?

Happy New Year just the same, Henry!

[Henry Flower]

Whoa, Henry!

Is that a way to treat an ethical, responsible and discerning historian, who has furthermore solved the Ripper case?

Surely I am the oneīs throat you should aim for, wretched accuser of innocent people and immoral, irresponsible theorist that I am?

Why chomp off a large bit of mother Teresas innocent butt when my guilty posterior is there to chew away at...?

Happy New Year just the same, Henry!

Now then sir, I have no intention of starting the year by chewing on your backside. I have a wife for that sort of thing! Happy new year to you too, sir. I admire your tenacity, if not your backside!

Besides, as a devotee of the late, great Christopher Hitchens I am no fan of Mother Theresa. Another hypocritical religious fraud who watched the sick die because she thought suffering was good for the soul and was the will of God. No thanks! I'm not a very Christer-like - oops, sorry - Christ-like person!

Have a peaceful and prosperous 2017 sir, always enjoy reading your contributions here.

[Sam Flynn]

Was he supposed to clippety-clop down Hanbury Street, park his cart, whisker Chapman away into the backyard, and then get up and away?

He could have used his carriage to pick up potential victims under false pretences, commit the murder at a location convenient to him, and potentially dispose of the bodies at another "safe" dumping-ground. It's what other mobile serial killers have done when they had easy access to their own transport, whether private or a commercial vehicle.

[Fisherman]

He could have used his carriage to pick up potential victims under false pretences, commit the murder at a location convenient to him, and potentially dispose of the bodies at another "safe" dumping-ground. It's what other mobile serial killers have done when they had easy access to their own transport, whether private or a commercial vehicle.

That belongs to todays serialism, Gareth. Itīs another story altogether, with cars and lorries and stuff.
The suggestion that we can conclude that the Ripper had no access to transport is gibberish, plain and simple. I am sorry, but there is no other way of putting it.

[Fisherman]

In the context about transport, I would like to add that prostitution and transport is a modern day invention to a very large degree. Today, picking up girls in a car offers anonymity and the possibility to seek out places to do the transaction, and that transaction can take place inside the car.
In 1888, however, I donīt think there would have been a single punter who drove down the prostitution streets with a horse and cart, looking for girls. The general idea would be to pick up street prostitutes on foot, and go with them to their chosen places of trade. If the killers ruse was to emulate a sex-for-money transaction, this would have been what he would have been called upon to do. It would allow him to choose women who were alone, and to go with them to empty spots, therefore leaving a minimal trace to follow. Picking them up in a cart would be much, much riskier from that point of view, reasonably the prostitutes would think it an odd suggestion, and the couple would risk being seen and remembered to a much higher degree. So I am staying by my view that suggesting that the killer could not have had any means of transportation at his disposal is a bad one.

[Sam Flynn]

So I am staying by my view that suggesting that the killer could not have had any means of transportation at his disposal is a bad one.

Not everything that might challenge your view has to be a "bad" idea. That the killer lacked access to transportation is a perfectly reasonable assumption that isn't in the least contradicted by the evidence.

In 1888, however, I donīt think there would have been a single punter who drove down the prostitution streets with a horse and cart, looking for girls.

Really? I don't think that can be so easily discounted, but who said anything about using the transport for the explicit purpose of prostitution? People can be lured into/onto vehicles under all kinds of pretences, as the serial killer literature clearly demonstrates.

That belongs to todays serialism, Gareth. Itīs another story altogether, with cars and lorries and stuff.

Doesn't make any difference; transport is transport. It's not as if olde-worlde torso killers (not just those of the LVP) went around openly carrying their victims on their backs until the advent of the internal combustion engine. If a vehicle, of whatever kind, can be used to dump a body, it can be used for other nefarious purposes.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not everything that might challenge your view has to be a "bad" idea.

I canīt recall claiming that it has to either, Gareth - it is your inference only, and I donīt like it one bit.

That the killer lacked access to transportation is a perfectly reasonable assumption that isn't in the least contradicted by the evidence.

Of course it is a viable assumption. But the fact of the matter is that what was exchanged between you and John G was his statement "In contrast, JtR, if he existed, was obviously a marauder, whose activities were focused on an extremely small geographical area, suggesting that he was a local man, with local knowledge, who didn't have access to transport" and your 100 per cent agreement, showing us that you both thought it an established point that the killer positively had no access to transport. So far from ME feeling that MY views are challenged, this is instead about me very soundly challenging the obviously risible statement that the Ripper was a man with no access to transport. I have very clearly laid out why I think this is a thoroughly substanceless and unproven stance.
And for the record, the "discounting" that has been done was the one suggestion that the Ripper had no access to transport!


Really? I don't think that can be so easily discounted, but who said anything about using the transport for the explicit purpose of prostitution? People can be lured into/onto vehicles under all kinds of pretences, as the serial killer literature clearly demonstrates.

If you have examples of street prostitutes of the East End variety being picked up by punters in carts, just bring them on.
Obviously people can be "lured into/onto vehicles under all kinds of pretences", but since we know that we are dealing with women who definitely/very probably engaged in prostitution, the idea that a would-be killer would choose to go around town at 3 AM, luring them into his cart under the pretence of taking them for a guided tour along the Embankment or something such falls short of the better suggestion that a would-be killer of prostitutes/lonely women would approach his victims in the manner they were used to be approached. At least to my mind - but I am not necessarily correct all the time, as you usefully have pointed out.

Doesn't make any difference; transport is transport. It's not as if olde-worlde torso killers (not just those of the LVP) went around openly carrying their victims on their backs until the advent of the internal combustion engine. If a vehicle, of whatever kind, can be used to dump a body, it can be used for other nefarious purposes.

On the contrary, it makes a world of difference. When cars are an established part of the prostitution trade, a killer who wants to dispatch prostitutes will do well to use a car trying to achieve his goal. Similarly, if approaching the prostitutes on foot, as was the rule in 1888, the clever and useful way to go about the business is to use that exact approach.

Iīm sure that anything can be suggested - as usual - and very little can be factually disproven - as usual - but I am not very inclined to take that as any form of assurance that the Ripper had no access to transport - or that he would have used that access if he had had it.
It cannot be ruled out that this was so, but it CAN be conclusively proven that the idea is not the only viable alternative, as was suggested by John and seconded by you. And I would like to be able to point the fallacy out without being portrayed as somebody who has to have it his way no matter what. Such an approach serves the discussion very badly.

Please note that I am not making the suggestion that the killer would never have used transportation if he had it - I am instead making the point that the fact that he did not do so cannot possibly prove that he had no such means. That is what the matter is about, nothing else.