Ripperologist Magazine #169 - July 2021

[Elamarna]

I think Joseph Merrick has to claim the number one spot as worst suspect ever Al. Even worse than a suspect who wasn’t in England like Van Gogh. I did read an eBook a year or two ago where the guy proposed Frederick Treves so it was only a matter of time I guess.

hi Herlock, i had several frank exchanges with the author of the Merrick book, sadly he is totally convinced by the profiling evidence.

To return to the great work of Chris and Pat, its research of this sort that gives us the big advances.
And it's not the first time that they have done such ground breaking research, I recall the work on the Kosminski family, a few years ago



steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great issue, thanks to all those involved in putting it together.

The article on Elizabeth Weston Davies was excellent. I've previously stated that Wynne's research into his ancestor was an interesting and plausible line of enquiry, even if I didn't think it made Francis Craig JtR. It was an avenue worth exploring. Thanks to Marshall and Phillips, that avenue is now concluded. Overall, we've seen the evolution of a theory, it's doubts, it's potentials, and now finally, it's closure. There's been good work all round and that should be an example to follow. Credit to Wynne Davies for acknowledging and responding.

Personally, I really liked the "Slumming It In Whitechapel" article. I'd not read that before, and it's got lots of interesting points that may crop up in future debates.

Save a thought for poor Paul Begg though. Having to read a book that seriously poses Merrick as JtR. He reads this stuff so we don't have to.

Good job folks. Worth the wait.

I think Joseph Merrick has to claim the number one spot as worst suspect ever Al. Even worse than a suspect who wasn’t in England like Van Gogh. I did read an eBook a year or two ago where the guy proposed Frederick Treves so it was only a matter of time I guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

While I’m pleased that Wynne unequivocally accepted Elizabeth Weston Davies has been located in a graveyard in Wales, having died 40 years after Mary Kelly, his suggestion that Francis Craig could still be Jack the Ripper, and that portions of Mary Kelly’s pre-Miller’s Court history could still be EWD, smacks like a bit of desperation. An attempt at salvaging any last possible shred of hope remaining that his theory isn’t completely busted.
In my opinion when writing his response he should have stopped while he was ahead.
Honestly I’m feeling a bit sad for Wynne that this whole thing didn’t turn out his way.

JM

Yes Jon, it looks like he’s at least trying to keep the Craig candle flickering but without the ‘Kelly’ connection it’s a non-existent theory and Craig would sit alongside a few other “well he was around at the time’ suspects.

[drstrange169]

For those interested, not many I suspect, I've shown on the thread, "Charles Cross (Lechmere)"
(https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ere#post764066)
that Christer's rebuttal is factually incorrect.

Now back to the positives of a great issue.

[drstrange169]

It's sad when a poster makes a big show of leaving because of claimed poor quality ripper research, posts on a thread about superb research by Pat and Chris without even bothering to congratulate them. Instead trying to turning thread into posts all about themselves. Would it have hurt you so much, to take a few seconds off your time to acknowledge Pat and Chris's effort, Christer?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Great issue, thanks to all those involved in putting it together.

The article on Elizabeth Weston Davies was excellent. I've previously stated that Wynne's research into his ancestor was an interesting and plausible line of enquiry, even if I didn't think it made Francis Craig JtR. It was an avenue worth exploring. Thanks to Marshall and Phillips, that avenue is now concluded. Overall, we've seen the evolution of a theory, it's doubts, it's potentials, and now finally, it's closure. There's been good work all round and that should be an example to follow. Credit to Wynne Davies for acknowledging and responding.

Personally, I really liked the "Slumming It In Whitechapel" article. I'd not read that before, and it's got lots of interesting points that may crop up in future debates.

Save a thought for poor Paul Begg though. Having to read a book that seriously poses Merrick as JtR. He reads this stuff so we don't have to.

Good job folks. Worth the wait.

[Kattrup]

It is sad when a poster who has had a number of mistakes pointed out to him will not owe up to these mistakes, although they have been spelt out very clearly again and again over many years. And it is of course also a kiss of death for the overall credibility of that poster to try and blame the people pointing out the misunderstandings, manipulations and mistakes for his own inadequacy.

In other news, great issue of Ripperologist, thank you editors!

[Fisherman]

My dear Christer there are no misunderstandings on my part, we simply disagree on many of the facts.
We disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. The Lloyds account is one such issue.
Of course this started even before your launch with Ed, I accept I worded that poorly.

I am the first to admit you do have a great skill of implying something is fact, without actually stating it.

I stand by my review, apart from the mistake, I pointed out myself.

There are areas where we will never agree, the blood is one of these areas.

With regards to bleed out times, to reach the point where the heart stops beating in under a minute requires the Aorta to have been severed, there is no indication of that, no matter how much you may want there to be.

Professor Thiblin, can only draw conclusions from what he is provided with, the actual facts regarding the wounds are far from clear. The reports from Llewellyn are less than pricise, and questionable.


That Professor Thiblin believes the neck was cut after death is interesting, but one would like an in depth explanation of his reasoning, not simply a line or two. Because this raises significant issues with other evidence.
I would love to discuss with the Proffessor all the issues regarding bleeding, because the weight of medical evidence on blood flow, in numerous papers and text books, is I am afraid contrary to the views you expound. Sadly we both know that discussion will never occur.
Unfortunately you have not I know read Insides Bucks Row, with all the references to these sources provided.

We will I suggest never agree on.so much of this. Who is correct?
Who knows.

I see no point in us going over all arguments on a review thread.

I have pointed out the good points of Cutting Point, and what I consider to be the bad.

Let's leave it to the readers.


Steve

It is sad when a reviewer who has had a number of mistakes pointed out to him will not owe up to these mistakes, although they have been spelt out very clearly. And it is of course also a kiss of death for the overall credibility of the review.

I am going to be very frank here. Steve starts this post of his by writing "My dear Christer", but I think everyone who has read Casebook the last few years know quite well that Steves approach towards me has been one where he has accused me of lying, of stating theory as fact, of having a bias that disallows me to see matters clearly and so on.

To exemplify what I mean, our last exchange was one where Steve accused me of tampering with the facts when I pointed out that Nichols was likely found by Lechmere around 3.45. This he did in spite of how the last police report on the errand says 3.45, despite how Robert Paul said it was "exactly 3.45" and in spite of how coroner Baxter said in his summing up of the case that 3.45 was the probable time when Nicholsī body was found, going on the many parameters that were in sync with that time. The historical record therefore speaks very clearly of 3.45 as the likely time when Nichols was found. But I was amazingly told that I was in conflict with the facts and too biased to understand what the real picture was!

That is how "dear" the two of us are. And that is something that Steve Blomer is quite, quite aware of himself. I sincerely hope he will not deny that too.

The question therefore becomes: Why did Steve accept to review a book written by a man he has called a liar, biased beyond comprehension and constantly making up facts to fit a theory? The prudent thing would of course be to inform the staff at Ripperologist that he was terribly unsuited to review the book. The only review that would be tolerable from his hand would be one of unlimited praise, unless he wanted to take the risk to compromise himself very badly. Like for example by claiming that I was "dodgy" when I supposedly withheld how Lechmere said that Robert Paul thought that Nichols was likely dead, although I did no such thing. I have proven it by supplying the adequate quotation from the book, showing that I not only pointed out this exact matter but I actually reminded the readers of it by reiterating it! But Steve Blomer "has made no mistake".

I also pointed out and disclosed as false, among other things, Blomers claim that the pathologists did not say whether they were commenting on blood under pressure or unpressurized blood in the Nichols case, by quoting professor Thiblin ad verbatim when he spoke of "passively emptying blood". But guess what? Steve Blomer has made no mistake. He would simply have wanted more than just "a line or two". Which was never the case, I write about the pathologists' take on things on eight (8) pages, n ot on a line or two. Then again, a line or two would be perfectly enough - as shown by the three words quoted above - to reveal what kind of bleeding the pathologists spoke of.
But still, Steve Blomer has made no mistake.

He instead now says: "I am the first to admit you do have a great skill of implying something is fact, without actually stating it." Meaning that I am masterful when it comes to deceiving readers into thinking something that is not true. Which is a very adequate example of who the "dodgy" part is in this exchange, I should say.

I wonīt go into the other examples I posted, not to make too lengthy a post. I donīt have to; itīs there in black and white in my post and can be checked by anybody who has access to my book.

It is important for me to point these things out. In the future, I sincerely hope that people who are very much biased against a writer are not allowed to review any material by that writers hand. It is of coure an extremely basic demand and it should never have to surface from the outset. It is sad that it became a necessity in this case. Steve Blomer should have been honest enough to admit to how he was not suited to review my book, and, of course, if the staff at Ripperologist was aware of the conflict, they also very much had a responsibility not to allow such a thing. If they were unaware of it, it would be a logic enough thing to let the writer of a book about Bucks Row do the review, of course.

It do not write this because I cannot take a bad review, but instead because I dislike being described as a biased and untruthful writer, bent on trying to serve "pure invention" as fact. It would be another matter if the grounds for these accusations were true, but as I have pointed out, they are instead - yes - pure invention. False. Incorrect.
There is little else that I can do but to reveal these matters; the damage is done, the readers of the review will work from the assumption that the reviewer was unbiased and correct in pointing me out as a dodgy character. As it should be. And as it never was.

It is (another) sad day for ripperology, although of course people turning to this weird science with a fresh and untainted mind will do what people always have done: Put their trust in how the suspect who has the most things pointing to guilt is actually also the guilty party. To some small extent, Steve Blomer has perhaps been able to slow the process of phasing Asaron Kosminski et al out, but at the end of the day, it will count for very little. If his efforts can serve as a warning example of how NOT to go about choosing a reviewer, then that is good enough for me.

And this is where my loing awaited paus from Casebook begins. I have said all there is to say on my part, and I will not answer any more posts on this issue.

See you all in the future!

[jmenges]

While I’m pleased that Wynne unequivocally accepted Elizabeth Weston Davies has been located in a graveyard in Wales, having died 40 years after Mary Kelly, his suggestion that Francis Craig could still be Jack the Ripper, and that portions of Mary Kelly’s pre-Miller’s Court history could still be EWD, smacks like a bit of desperation. An attempt at salvaging any last possible shred of hope remaining that his theory isn’t completely busted.
In my opinion when writing his response he should have stopped while he was ahead.
Honestly I’m feeling a bit sad for Wynne that this whole thing didn’t turn out his way.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m going to read Joe Chetcuti’s article today but it’s another superb issue so far. The Pat Marshall/Chris Phillips article was top drawer stuff and I’ll certainly echo Dusty’s comment about Wynn Weston Davies response. Hats off to Wynn.

Continuing congratulations to all involved in the production of Ripperologist and a big to all of the contributors.

Any chance of making it weekly?

[drstrange169]

A particularly good issue.

Pat and Chris set a standard that ripper research should be done at. Cudo's to Wynne Weston Davies for such classy response. A lesson there for people on how to behave when errors are pointed out.

Mel Hopkins piece was a good read and being very familiar with the S.W.T. articles it was particularly interesting to read about Lillie Harris, a woman worth looking further into! Nice to see Robert remember in print.

I'll comment on Steve's review and Christer's rebuttal elsewhere, as Lechmere posts spread out faster across the site than the Delta variant does in the real world and this thread should reflect how good this issue was.

Still have some articles to read, from Joe, Eduardo, Bruce and the Brown's, but once again congrats to all.

[Elamarna]

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

I hope my response to Christer is ok,
We really don't want rebuttal on top of rebuttal, on top of rebuttal as you say.

If for no other reason that Christer and I are unlikely to reach a concesus.

At the end of the day, it's down to the readers.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

My dear Christer there are no misunderstandings on my part, we simply disagree on many of the facts.
We disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. The Lloyds account is one such issue.
Of course this started even before your launch with Ed, I accept I worded that poorly.

I am the first to admit you do have a great skill of implying something is fact, without actually stating it.

I stand by my review, apart from the mistake, I pointed out myself.

There are areas where we will never agree, the blood is one of these areas.

With regards to bleed out times, to reach the point where the heart stops beating in under a minute requires the Aorta to have been severed, there is no indication of that, no matter how much you may want there to be.

Professor Thiblin, can only draw conclusions from what he is provided with, the actual facts regarding the wounds are far from clear. The reports from Llewellyn are less than pricise, and questionable.


That Professor Thiblin believes the neck was cut after death is interesting, but one would like an in depth explanation of his reasoning, not simply a line or two. Because this raises significant issues with other evidence.
I would love to discuss with the Proffessor all the issues regarding bleeding, because the weight of medical evidence on blood flow, in numerous papers and text books, is I am afraid contrary to the views you expound. Sadly we both know that discussion will never occur.
Unfortunately you have not I know read Insides Bucks Row, with all the references to these sources provided.

We will I suggest never agree on.so much of this. Who is correct?
Who knows.

I see no point in us going over all arguments on a review thread.

I have pointed out the good points of Cutting Point, and what I consider to be the bad.

Let's leave it to the readers.


Steve

[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!’

[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