Ripperologist Magazine #169 - July 2021

[jmenges]

You don’t want to miss it.

Out tomorrow - issue 169 of your free RIPPEROLOGIST magazine, delivered to your email inbox!

Containing 75 pages of the latest news, views and reviews relating to the Whitechapel murders and the East End, RIPPEROLOGIST is the leading publication of serious study of the subject.

In this issue:

Pat Marshall and Chris Phillips
Mel Hopkins
Joe Chetcuti
Bruce Collie
Donald Swanson Archive
Nina and Howard Brown
Victorian Fiction
The Latest Book Reviews

If you don't already subscribe - and why not?! - all we need is your email address, so head over to the link below and fill in the brief form, and you’ll be automatically added to our subscriber list:

http://ripperologist.co.uk/subscribe.html

*****

[Abby Normal]

You don’t want to miss it.

Out tomorrow - issue 169 of your free RIPPEROLOGIST magazine, delivered to your email inbox!

Containing 75 pages of the latest news, views and reviews relating to the Whitechapel murders and the East End, RIPPEROLOGIST is the leading publication of serious study of the subject.

In this issue:

Pat Marshall and Chris Phillips
Mel Hopkins
Joe Chetcuti
Bruce Collie
Donald Swanson Archive
Nina and Howard Brown
Victorian Fiction
The Latest Book Reviews

If you don't already subscribe - and why not?! - all we need is your email address, so head over to the link below and fill in the brief form, and you’ll be automatically added to our subscriber list:

http://ripperologist.co.uk/subscribe.html

*****

yay!! looking forward to it!

[jmenges]

I’ll say that the article by Pat Marshall and Chris Phillips is stunning. It’s research of the best kind - one that answers lingering questions, tells a great story and forever puts a theory to bed. I can’t wait for others to read it.

JM

[Wickerman]

If you don't already subscribe - and why not?! - all we need is your email address, so head over to the link below and fill in the brief form, and you’ll be automatically added to our subscriber list:

http://ripperologist.co.uk/subscribe.html

*****

The 'subscribe' button doesn't work.

I was subscribed under a different email before they stopped being published.

So, how do I get nos. 167 & 168?

[jmenges]

The 'subscribe' button doesn't work.

I was subscribed under a different email before they stopped being published.

So, how do I get nos. 167 & 168?

PM me your email address.

JM

[Christian]

Look forward to it as usual

[Elamarna]

Hi All,
In the review of Cutting Point, by myself, there is a very obvious typo on page 60.

It says

"but I don’t know any source in which Lechmere says how far Paul was away from him when he first became aware of his presence."


Obviously This should say

"but I don’t know any source in which Paul says how far Lechmere was away from him when he first became aware of his presence."

Sorry for the mistake.


Steve

[Debra A]

I’ll say that the article by Pat Marshall and Chris Phillips is stunning. It’s research of the best kind - one that answers lingering questions, tells a great story and forever puts a theory to bed. I can’t wait for others to read it.

JM

I agree Jonathan! A fantastic piece of research by Pat and Chris. Congratulations to both of them.
Debs

[Elamarna]

I’ll say that the article by Pat Marshall and Chris Phillips is stunning. It’s research of the best kind - one that answers lingering questions, tells a great story and forever puts a theory to bed. I can’t wait for others to read it.

JM

Can't agree more, truly wonderful research.
Well done to both researchers.

Steve

[Wickerman]

PM me your email address.

JM

All received, many thanks. The Ripperologist has been sorely missed.
Thankyou Jonathan.

[Fisherman]

Hi All,
In the review of Cutting Point, by myself, there is a very obvious typo on page 60.

It says

"but I don’t know any source in which Lechmere says how far Paul was away from him when he first became aware of his presence."


Obviously This should say

"but I don’t know any source in which Paul says how far Lechmere was away from him when he first became aware of his presence."

Sorry for the mistake.


Steve

Thank you for making that correction, Steve.

I would also like to thank you for stating that Cutting Point is a good read, well constructred, engaging and well written. And for adding that it is a book every serious student shiuld have on their bookshelf. That is very generous of you!

I would howwever like to add a few points to clarify a number of matters, if you donīt much mind!

You write that I first presented the theory in the Missing Evidence dock, but in actual fact, it was presented in 2012 in a joint effort by me and Edward Stow when we launched the theory in a presentation in St Johns Church, Bethnal Green, on the 124:th anniversary of the death of Polly Nichols. It was covered by a number of newspapers but of course it would not have reached as many people as the docu did.

You then say that you cannot see how the material in the book about anatomical displays, profiling and psychology are linked to Lechmere, but I clearly point out that I believe that Lechmere was the Thames Torso killer as well as the Ripper and that both series were to a large degree inspired by the anatomical museums of the age. So I fail to see what you mean. And when outlining the psychology of serial killers, I make a large number of suggestions about how our knowledge about these matters may be applicable to Lechmere. Of course, if you need watertight proof that these matters were linked to the carman the way I suggest, none of these chapters provide such a thing. But since when is that a requirement for writing a suspect book?

Next: You write that I state "pure imagination" as fact when saying that Robert Paul was a hundred yards or more away from Lechmere when the latter first became aware of his presence. What I say is that this is a possibility, but I also point out how there are of course other possibilities. I do not claim any of them as a factually proven distance, so I am a bit flummoxed when you say that I do.

You also write that I am "a bit dodgy" about how I state that Paul said that he thought he felt Nichols breathing, while I "underplay" Pauls statement to PC Mizen that he thought that the woman was dead. This statement has two sets of sources, the Lloyds interview, where we know that Pauls role in the drama is overrated and Lechmere is totally excluded from it, and then more serious material from the inquest, where for example the Times has Lechmere saying that Paul told Mizen that Nichols was probably dead. The problem is that the source in this case is Lechmere himself, and since he is under suspicion of being the killer, his words cannot be taken as factual. What we would need would be testimony from Paul at the inquest, where he claimed to have told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. But what we instead have is Paul telling the inquest that he thought that he felt Nicholsī chest move, meaning that he would absolutely not have informed Mizen that he believed that she was dead. Dead people do not breathe or stir. And Paul never says at the inquest that he himself spoke to Mizen, he only says that "they", meaning the entity of Lechmere and Paul, told Mizen about how there was a woman in Bucks Row who needed his attention. And of course, Mizen says that one man spoke to him, not two. He has to be reminded by coroner Baxter that there was another man present before he remembers Pauls presence.
If I had left out that it was claimed that Paul told Mizen that he believed that Nichols was dead it would perhaps have been "dodgy", but I did no such thing. I quote the Lloyds Weekly article and I mention how Lechmere made his claim about Paul. On page 75, I very clearly write "... we have seen that Charles Lechmere claimed that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he believed that the woman in Buckīs Row was dead...", referring back to having described it earlier in the book.
How this adds up to me understating this fact and being "dodgy", I have a hard time trying to understand.

You speak about my bias and how this has resulted in an not "altogether balanced view". I think it must be pointed out that a suspect book will always be biased against the suspect presented in it as such, but that does not equal stating "pure invention" as fact, and I would be interested to see if you can point to any such passage in the book. A theory as such IS invention, but as long as it is not presented as proven invention, surely it is allowed to make suggestions? That must be what suspect books are about, must it not?

You say that I have not made clear if the bleeding spoken about by the two forensic medicos in the book was one of underlying pressure or of gravity. As I have explained, both men were very well read up on the material and that in itself means that since we do not know the exact timings involved and the degree to which Nichols was strangled, we cannot be certain whether there was some - or quite some - initial blood presure pumping involved to some degree. But that means very little when we have professor Thiblin saying that the full amount of blood in a body like that of Polly Nichols is around five liters, and that with the heart pumping, those five litres of blood will be pumped out in a minute. Therefore, it is very evident that professor Thiblin worked from a presumption that gravity was what governed the blood flow when he suggested a bleeding time of 3-5 minutes, at least predominantly. And indeed, he says as much on page 88: "Professor Thiblin thought it more probable that the cutting of the throat had occurred when Nichols was already dead or almost dead, reasoning that the blood that was observed running from the neck was passively emptying out from the head of Polly Nichols". (My underlining)

You move on to make the claim that I would have stated that the matter with the carman who ran over and killed a boy in 1876 was no accident. This is a very strange claim to make, since I nowhere say anything along those lines. I point to how the father of the boy initially thought that this could have been so, but I never claim that the death of young Walter Williams was intentional on Lechmereīs behalf. Nor do I rule it out, but surely that is a very different matter?

You say that I ascribe "inappropriate weight" to the pointers to Lechmere being the Thames Torso killer. It is anyones prerogative to make a call in that department. Therefore, I feel that the bulk of the readers of my book will agree with me and disagree with you. But that is speculation only! What is not speculation is that you write that the rag found in an exact line between the Pinchin Street murder dumping site and Doveton Street, where Lechmere lived, needs to be toned down because the rag was found at a building site close to London Hospital. The inference seems to be that we should expect the surroundings of the hospital to be littered with bloodied rags, but if this was so, then why did the press choose to write aboout this particular rag and not all the others?
To begin with, I donīt think that the streets surrounding London Hospital were lined with bloodstained rags, but I also think that the reason the press wrote was because this particular rag was found on the day after the dumping of the Pinchin Street victim. The objection any defense team would make about it is very obvious: We cannot know that the rag had anything at all to do with the Pinchin Street deed. That is very true, and it would be of minor interest if it was not for how it fits perfectly with having been dropped by Lechmere, my suggested killer, on his way back to his lodgings. It is not until we have a suspect that fits exactly with the rag that its potential significance becomes a very burning issue, and that is why it also must be mentioned as a possible clue to solve the case. Which is exactly what I do.
What would you have me do instead? Forget about it? Say "It probably means nothing"? Exactly how should I tone it down?

Next: You say that it is "particularly glaring" how I accept that Dr Hebbert was correct in stating that the four torsos from 1887-1889 were killed and cut up by the same hand whereas I do not invest much in his statement that the Ripper and the Thames Torso killer were not one and the same. Here, it is important to understand that the source is not the same in both cases. Hebbert described exactly why he believed in the same killer in his extensive two contemporary reports on these cases, and there is little reason to doubt his word. He was even able to describe exactly how the killers ability to cut away a head with a knife evolved over the series.
But when it comes to how he claimed that the Ripper and the Torso killer were not one and the same and spoke about varying levels of skill, he did so in 1903, fifteen years after the murders, and he had very clearly muddled the cases badly by then. For example, he stated that one of the things that told the cases apart was how the Ripper had removed and taken away internal organs, forgetting that the Thames Torso killer had done the exact same thing in - at least - the case of Elizabeth Jackson. In this text from 1903, we can also see how Hebbert is a devoted believer in criminal anthropology, meaning that he entertained ideas about the criminal class and how it would behave, ideas that are ridiculous to us today.
So you are comparing apples to pears here: a very exact and contemporary description of cut wounds to a very late text, muddled by the afflictions of criminal anthropology. When it comes to victorian doctors, it is always important not to believe they were as versed in criminal psychology as they were in making medical observations of wounds. Once we admit this matter, it becomes less damning to believe in what a doctor says in one department while misbelieving him in other areas. It need not be about bias but instead about recognizing the simple facts.

I am sorry that you didnīt think you got enough new material in the book. It was however written as a basic account of the whole of the Lechmere theory, something that had been asked for many times on the internet. And it was not written purely for the Ripper afficionados but instead for anybody who wants to know why Charles Lechmere has become the most spoken about and debated suspect of latter years.

Once again thank you for your kind words, and I hope I have been able to correct what I perceive as a few unlucky misunderstandings on your behalf. Itīs not that I cannot take criticism, but instead how I think that criticism must be based on a factually correct weighing up. If all I wanted was to be praised, I could always read Tom Wescotts review on Amazon, where he generously awards the book five stars.

[jmenges]

Thank you Christer for posting your rebuttal of Steve’s book review.

Everyone else - please limit this thread to a discussion about the content of the latest issue of Ripperologist Magazine.
All other discussion of Christer’s theory that’s not directly relating to Steve’s review should be made in one of the countless other Lechmere threads existing and active on the boards.

JM

[Fisherman]

I have on two other threads on Casebook said that I will be taking some time away from Casebook, and that is something I very much intend to do. However, I found that I needed to comment on Steves review for reasons given in my post above, and I will follow the development in this matter before I take a paus from these boards.

Ideally, I would like to discuss the review with Steve only, and - depending on who posts on the subject - I may well choose to answer whatever he says only and leave other comments uncommented upon, all depending, of course, on what is said.

With any luck, we shall be able to have a calm, collected and serious exchange.

[jmenges]

Your comment about Steve’s review was fine and proper.
My intention was to head off at the pass anyone -except for Steve- who might inadvertently but irretrievably derail this particular thread by posting a rebuttal to your rebuttal and so on and so on and so on.

JM

[MrBarnett]

As others have said, Pat’s and Chris’s EWD article is truly outstanding. As Mr Punch would say, ‘That’s the way to do it!’