Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Pierre]

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.

The key question is why a person would prefere to change his usual method of taking home prostitutes in the West End, kill them at home, cut up their bodies and distribute them using a horse and cab - and start to kill numerous women and leave them on display in a small geographic area in the East End during a very short time.

The key answer to that question is desperation.

And by the way, "usual method..." is just for the idea of Fisherman. All I know for 1887 is that the Rainham case might have been a victim of the Whitechapel murderer who was in London at that time.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Question: What do the so called B1 butcher of Namibia (still uncaught), Jeffrey Dahmer and Randy Kraft have in common?
Answer: They dismebered some of their victims while not doing so in other cases.
There are more examples, but these should make that point.

On a different note, I donīt think that the Torso killer/Ripper dismembered the Thames torso victims for the same reason/s as the B1 killer, Dahmer and Kraft did theirs. But thatīs a different matter, what is important is to realize that serialists may take the approach of mixing up dismemebered victims with victims that are not dismembered.

[Pierre]

The key question is why a person would prefere to change his usual method of taking home prostitutes in the West End, kill them at home, cut up their bodies and distribute them using a horse and cab - and start to kill numerous women and leave them on display in a small geographic area in the East End during a very short time.

The key answer to that question is desperation.

And by the way, "usual method..." is just for the idea of Fisherman. All I know for 1887 is that the Rainham case might have been a victim of the Whitechapel murderer who was in London at that time.

Regards, Pierre

And also, hypothesizing that Lechmere killed the women in all the torso cases is hopeless. There are no sources and all Fisherman does is to speculate. I wish he was right, but it is a hopeless case of missing sources, i.e. they do not exist and have never existed.

I think that the only chance to find out who killed anyone or some of the women is to find an extraordinary set of sources which gives at least some information for the actions on a micro level. And this is almost impossible.

I myself have been struggling very hard for the last days with two very difficult sources. I have not known what to make of it. This type of source is generally full of problems, and not very reliable. But fortunately there are other independent sources to compare these sources to.

Anyway, I have been writing earlier on here on historical explanations and the need for valid and reliable sources. This applies all the time and this is what I struggle with. Not easy. Have been close to giving up the whole case these last days.

And this I write to anyone who wants to know a little about how I am working with sources right now.

And I specifically ask DAVID ORSAM and HENRY FLOWER AND GUT to NOT ATTACK ME when I discuss historical methods here in the forum.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I think that the only chance to find out who killed anyone or some of the women is to find an extraordinary set of sources which gives at least some information for the actions on a micro level. And this is almost impossible.

I myself have been struggling very hard for the last days with two very difficult sources. I have not known what to make of it. This type of source is generally full of problems, and not very reliable. But fortunately there are other independent sources to compare these sources to.

Anyway, I have been writing earlier on here on historical explanations and the need for valid and reliable sources. This applies all the time and this is what I struggle with. Not easy. Have been close to giving up the whole case these last days.

And this I write to anyone who wants to know a little about how I am working with sources right now.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Question: What do the so called B1 butcher of Namibia (still uncaught), Jeffrey Dahmer and Randy Kraft have in common?
Answer: They dismebered some of their victims while not doing so in other cases.

...what is important is to realize that serialists may take the approach of mixing up dismemebered victims with victims that are not dismembered.

Only if they have a choice. If you're confined to a narrow geographical area, constrained to operating on foot, and (quite possibly) have no place of your own in which to cut up the bodies, you have little choice but to kill and mutilate your victims in public. Hence the Ripper murders. The torso murders? Different matter entirely.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

You said it was a bad idea yourself, only a few hours ago!!!

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.

Ye gods!

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: If you're confined to a narrow geographical area, constrained to operating on foot, and (quite possibly) have no place of your own in which to cut up the bodies, you have little choice but to kill and mutilate your victims in public. Hence the Ripper murders.

Well, Gareth, much as I understand your point, I think you are making the same kind of mistake here as you did about the transport bit. Killing out in the open street does not equate not being able to do it elsewhere, it does not equate being of low economical means, it does not equate not having a place of your own.
I am not saying that the guess that the killer was too dirt poor to be able to kill elsewhere must be wrong. But I am pointing to how it is no certainty at all.

The torso murders? Different matter entirely.

No. Different matter to an extent only: the extent that the killer would have used a bolthole where he killed and dismembered the bodies, and that he used a transport to dump the parts.

On the other hand, 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.

Now, THAT is not a "different matter entirely". It is instead so many commonalitites, some of them extremely rare, that I have managed to find no other example of two other serialists overlapping in the same manner.

The only truly reasonable conclusion is that the originator of both series was one and the same man.

I will offer a structure of the crimes as a suggestion, only to highlight what COULD have happened. It is not the scenario I favour myself, but it goes to exemplify how the "entirely different parts inbetween the series can be bridged.

Letīs assume that the killer was a man with a deeply rooted hatred for prostitutes, and that his wish was to annihilate them. He starts out using a bolthole where he dispatches prostitutes he has picked up, and takes great care not to be detected. He is careful and very decided on continuing.
He finds that the press starts to cover what he does, and he goes from merely dumping the parts in the Thames to a wish to proudly display his work to the world. The police has no clue about his identity, and he grows very much in confidence. Now, he feels that he can go about his business without risking to get caught. He feels omnipotent, and decides that the prostitutes who he has taken great precatutions when whiskering them away, have now become a prey that he is able to attack on the open streets. They are no longer safe, and he can take them out as they are plying their trade. And he does just that. That does not give him the chance to taunt them and tell them what he thinks of them, so he hangs on to the bolthole buysiness too, to keep that part alive. And he makes it a point to taunt the police too, since they are for some reason standing on the side of prostitution and filth in the battle.

You see, there has to be an explanation for why we have the same killer in both cases. This is one such possible explanation, but there are other possibilities too. Any which way, since the common ID of the killers is a given, one of these explanations will be true.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: You said it was a bad idea yourself, only a few hours ago!!!

Yes, I did. What I did NOT say is that it is always a bad idea to challenge what I think. Which was what you suggested, and which was what I turned against.

Ye gods!

Come off it, and grow up, please. You suggested that the Ripper could not have had access to any means of transport, I dispelled that notion for what it was, and thatīs it. Live with it.

[Sam Flynn]

You suggested that the Ripper could not have had access to any means of transport

No, I suggested that the Ripper murders were entirely consistent with the killer's not having access to transport. Which they patently were.

I dispelled that notion for what it was, and thatīs it.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

[Torso murders and Ripper murders are a] different matter to an extent only: the extent that the killer would have used a bolthole where he killed and dismembered the bodies, and that he used a transport to dump the parts.

That's four huge differences right off the bat. Did the Ripper need a bolthole in which to kill his victims? Whom did the Ripper dismember? When did the Ripper need to use a transport? On which occasion did he move/dump the bodies?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No, I suggested that the Ripper murders were entirely consistent with the killer's not having access to transport. Which it patently was.

John G posted this passage:
"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"
You said you agreed with the points 100 per cent.

Thatīs why I pointed out that the suggestion that the killer would have had no access to any form of transport is an unsubstantiable point that furthermore is at odds with logic - a killer of prostitutes will generally approach them in a matter that is consistent with how they are contacted by punters.

If you have now changed your mind about it, then fine. If you claim that my point is wrong, then less fine.


You didn't dispel it, because it was, and remains, an entirely sensible proposition.

It is viable - to an unestablishable degree. I would advice against investing too much in it.

Instead, you dismissed a perfectly good idea as "bad", which was bound to wind me up.

It IS a bad idea to rule out that the killer could have had access to transport, but actively chosen not to use it. It is a really, really bad idea. Sorry, but there you are.
If you are wound up by it, thatīs not good, but I am not one to hide my convictions in favour of having people like me a bit more.
Do you actually disagree that it is a bad idea to rule out the possibility that the killer chose not to use any transport? Do you really think that he would inevitably have used whatever transport he had, before killing in the open street?

Do you think I post this stuff without thinking it through first?

Do you think I do, Gareth? In this case, I think you may have hastened a bit too much to agree with John.

[Fisherman]

That's four huge differences right off the bat. Did the Ripper need a bolthole in which to kill his victims? Whom did the Ripper dismember? When did the Ripper need to use a transport? On which occasion did he move/dump the bodies?

If the damage done to the bodies is the same in so many instances as I listed above, the method of disposing of the bodies becomes very secondary. The mere fact that a killer who uses a bolthole MUST remove the body afterwards, whereas a street killer does not have that need is a very enlightening fact.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre did somebody give you the impression that your struggle with difficult sources sometimes being alleviated by other sources would be of interest? If so, I can't recall.

Given that you never name these sources, what possible interest could anybody here have in what you just wrote? Evidence and reasoning are of interest, your struggle is not.

You should give up the case and pursue something else. The case will not be solved by someone who simply changes wordings to fit his narrative, or presumes that documents contradicting his theory are full of deliberate falsehoods, or looks for idiotic mathematical and linguistic clues in irrelevant letters. You should give up. You're only going to upset yourself further, old chap. Your theories are nonsense, and the way you constantly claim some kind of privileged historical position for your research before unleashing your latest DaVinci Code gibberish is becoming slightly embarrassing for you I'd imagine.

As for asking not to be attacked, stop posting idiotic posts about sources and your struggles, without evidence, without testable propositions. There, now we have both made a request.

You may have noticed I don't talk to others in this tone, and the reason I make an exception for you is that you have been the single most pompous, arrogant gobsh1te I've ever seen here in many years. You're welcome.

[Sam Flynn]

If the damage done to the bodies is the same in so many instances as I listed above.

I don't see much similarity at all, beyond some very generic points that could apply to almost any bloody murder.

I'm not denying the points of fact you listed, but I would question (a) the true degree of similarity; and (b) the significance of any genuine similarities that might provide a meaningful diagnostic tool to compare/contrast the two series of murders.

For example, "they were killed in the same town/same period" sounds impressive, until we realise we're talking about Late Victorian London, among the biggest and most violent cities in the western world. Not a very useful diagnostic criterion, therefore.

Is there a more relevant thread to the topic?

[Fisherman]

I don't see much similarity at all, beyond some very generic points that could apply to almost any bloody murder.

I'm not denying the points of fact you listed, but I would question (a) the true degree of similarity; and (b) the significance of any genuine similarities that might provide a meaningful diagnostic tool to compare/contrast the two series of murders.

For example, "they were killed in the same town/same period" sounds impressive, until we realise we're talking about Late Victorian London, among the biggest and most violent cities in the western world. Not a very useful diagnostic criterion, therefore.

Is there a more relevant thread to the topic?

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.