Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Sam Flynn]

Question away, Gareth, it changes nothing.

Close-mindedness does not befit a serious historian or criminologist, Fish.

Prepare yourself for a long and fruitless search.

No thanks.

[Fisherman]

Close-mindedness does not befit a serious historian or criminologist, Fish.No thanks.

Try another one, then - present two serial killers, working in the same geographical area and at the same time, displaying the same amount of shared traits as the originators of these two series.

Unless this can be done, the better suggestion must always be a shared identity. Just saying "Nah, I canīt be bothered to bolster it, but you are wrong, surely" is not going to do the trick.

Itīs close-minded, see.

[Fisherman]

Just remembered that I forgot one similar trait on the list: both killers were pointed out by medicos as having surgical knowledge/experience.

Probably just another "generic" coincidence, eh...?

Itīs interesting that once the suggestion of a shared identity is argued - and long overdue it is! - it is said that it is "close-minded". Supposedly, not accepting the very obvious possibility and not researching the shared traits is instead the open-minded and fresh approach...?

[John Wheat]

Close-mindedness does not befit a serious historian or criminologist, Fish.No thanks.

But any serious historian or criminologist wouldn't post dross about Lechmere.

[John G]

Try another one, then - present two serial killers, working in the same geographical area and at the same time, displaying the same amount of shared traits as the originators of these two series.

Unless this can be done, the better suggestion must always be a shared identity. Just saying "Nah, I canīt be bothered to bolster it, but you are wrong, surely" is not going to do the trick.

Itīs close-minded, see.

What shared traits? And what do you mean by "same geographical area"? As I've already explained to you, the C5 murders occurred within a remarkably small geographical area. Conversely, Torso remains turned up all over London, and over a period of almost two decades, not just a few short months, as in respect of the C5.

[John G]

Just remembered that I forgot one similar trait on the list: both killers were pointed out by medicos as having surgical knowledge/experience.

Probably just another "generic" coincidence, eh...?

Itīs interesting that once the suggestion of a shared identity is argued - and long overdue it is! - it is said that it is "close-minded". Supposedly, not accepting the very obvious possibility and not researching the shared traits is instead the open-minded and fresh approach...?

Are you winding me up? There was no consensus of medical opinion, either now or at the time, regarding the level of skill demonstrated demonstrated in the C5 or Torso cases. You're just cherry picking the evidence to bolster a weak theory.

[John G]

Question away, Gareth, it changes nothing. You can start where I recommend everybody to start - find me another eviscerating serial killer who has taken away the abdominal walls of his victims in large panes.

Prepare yourself for a long and fruitless search - and accept the consequences. Thatīs how "generic" it is.

What do you mean by "panes". Here's a definition of this word, none of which relate to something an "eviscerating serial killer" would do: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panes.

If you mean that the Torso victims were cut up into sections, then how else is a dismemberer supposed to divide up a body?

Please give another example were a dismemberer has switched to becoming a mutilaltor, and then switched back again to a dismemberer?

[John G]

No, I suggested that the Ripper murders were entirely consistent with the killer's not having access to transport. Which they patently were.You didn't dispel it, because it was, and remains, an entirely sensible proposition. Instead, you dismissed a perfectly good idea as "bad", which was bound to wind me up. Do you think I post this stuff without thinking it through first?

I'm afraid Fisherman, like Pierre, is not intereted in obvious facts.

[John G]

I'm sure that everyone who dips into this thread about the Secret Police Files wants to know a little about how Pierre is working with the sources and his daily struggles with those sources. One day he has solved the case, the next day he is "close to giving up the whole case". But do not fear, tomorrow Pierre will have found a new source from an archive to give him fresh hope, with a hypothesis that he simply cannot disprove, therefore he will be driven forward on an ethical basis to continue posting nonsense in this forum.

Maybe Pierre is really a chef, who shas a problem with grammar, and what he's really struggling with is "sauces'!"

[John G]

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

Hi Pierre,

Thanks for this. And I agree totally with your observations concerning Fisherman's approach.

[John G]

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

Thanks Gareth. Your comments are much appreciated.

[Fisherman]

What shared traits? And what do you mean by "same geographical area"? As I've already explained to you, the C5 murders occurred within a remarkably small geographical area. Conversely, Torso remains turned up all over London, and over a period of almost two decades, not just a few short months, as in respect of the C5.

John, the time span has nothing to do with the geography. Regardless of the years passing, the murders were nevertheless a London affair. Thatīs what I mean by the same geographical area.
You claim that the Torso remains turned up "all over London", but you need to keep in mind that dumping sites and murder sites were not the same in the torso cases. Each and every one pf the victims could potentially have been picked up in Bucks Row for all we know.
As for parts dumped on dry land, they were found in Central London, not very far from each other, perhaps three or four miles, with the exception of the Pinchin Street torso.

As for shared traits, I trust you can read? If so, itīs listed on this thread, but I am happy to re-list it:

Both series:

-happened in the same town.
-happened at the same time period, the torso killings overlapping the Ripper ones.
-involved cutting necks and bleeding off victims.
-involved opening up the abdomens of the victims from breastbone to pubes.
-involved the taking out of organs of both a sexual and a non-sexual character.
-involved cutting away abdominal walls in large flaps.
-involved taking away parts of the colon.
-involved the taking of rings from the fingers of the victims.
-involved what seems to be posing of the victims.
-involved the preying on prostitutes.
-involved medicos opting for the idea that the killers had surgical insights.

Those are the shared traits, John.

[Fisherman]

Are you winding me up? There was no consensus of medical opinion, either now or at the time, regarding the level of skill demonstrated demonstrated in the C5 or Torso cases. You're just cherry picking the evidence to bolster a weak theory.

So you are saying that it is not the case that both series involved medicos opting for the killers having surgical knowledge? That is just me cherry-picking?

Maybe you need to read it again, John, and make a new effort to understand what you are told?

[Fisherman]

John G: What do you mean by "panes". Here's a definition of this word, none of which relate to something an "eviscerating serial killer" would do: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panes.

Panes, flaps, sections. The name is not as important as the implications - the killer cut away the abdominal wall in parts, two in Jacksons case, three in Kellys, four in Chapmans.

If you mean that the Torso victims were cut up into sections, then how else is a dismemberer supposed to divide up a body?

See the above, if you cannot understand what I mean.

Please give another example were a dismemberer has switched to becoming a mutilaltor, and then switched back again to a dismemberer?

Randy Kraft is a contender. But you are asking the question in a faulty manner. It is not as if the torso killer was NOT an eviscerator. He took out the uterus from Jacksons body, the lung and hearts from the Rainham victim AND Jackson, he took out colons etcetera. He may have taken out a lot more, but we cannot be sure, since the river may - itīs not all that likely, but possible - have helped with some of the organ extractions.
Plus the extractions were carried out via openings to the abdomen that were of the exact same character as the Rippers cuts - ribcage to pelvis.
So what you need to ask is if there are examples of people who have included dismemberment in some cases, whereas they didnīt in others. Like Randy Kraft.
Now itīs your turn. Give me an example where a serial killer has cut away the abdominal wall from a victim. Give me an example where two serial killers have plagued the same city at the same time, inflicting the same kind of evisceration cuts and damages to their victims.
My prediction is that you will be unable to give any examples, but letīs see!

Itīs funny how you now seem to invest in how dismemberment is a matter that is desired by the killer, a goal per se. You used to think that it was solely a way of disposing of body parts, a purely practical matter. But there you go!

[Pierre]

John G: What do you mean by "panes". Here's a definition of this word, none of which relate to something an "eviscerating serial killer" would do: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panes.

Panes, flaps, sections. The name is not as important as the implications - the killer cut away the abdominal wall in parts, two in Jacksons case, three in Kellys, four in Chapmans.

If you mean that the Torso victims were cut up into sections, then how else is a dismemberer supposed to divide up a body?

See the above, if you cannot understand what I mean.

Please give another example were a dismemberer has switched to becoming a mutilaltor, and then switched back again to a dismemberer?

Randy Kraft is a contender. But you are asking the question in a faulty manner. It is not as if the torso killer was NOT an eviscerator. He took out the uterus from Jacksons body, the lung and hearts from the Rainham victim AND Jackson, he took out colons etcetera. He may have taken out a lot more, but we cannot be sure, since the river may - itīs not all that likely, but possible - have helped with some of the organ extractions.
So what you need to ask is if there are examples of people who have included dismemberment in some cases, whereas they didnīt in others. Like Randy Kraft.
Now itīs your turn. Give me an example where a serial killer has cut away the abdominal wall from a victim. Give me an example where two serial killer has plagued the same city at the same time, inflicting the same kind of evisceration cuts and damages to their victims.

Fisherman,

There is a long way from the way to do it to the person who did it.

Pierre