The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Elamarna]

That's simply an insulting and pompous remark towards everyone here, Pierre. The vast majority of Ripperologists have done thorough research and have contributed greatly to the understanding of the case. They are, for the most part kind and generous people who are willing to share their information with others in order to help. Many of their theories have strong reasoning applied to them and evidence to back it up.
So far, in your case, you seem to have contributed a lot of questions, very little in the way of answers for your theory and nothing but ridicule for most of the members of this site.

Dear SuspectZero

I agree with you 100%.

All we get is how all who have looked at the case are failures, he does love to tell us its 127 years!. For various reason that view cannot be seen as being true, especially as many have not actually looked for the ID of the killer. Many have conducted research on other areas of the case., something the poster gives the impression of not being aware of, something which I actually do not believe is true..

However the assumption by the poster that he may have the ID when he has given NO EVIDENCE is indeed insulting.

Steve

[Pierre]

Touche' Pierre! Apologies for the digression, but have you considered a career as a screenwriter or film producer?

Pierre, are you Quentin Tarantino?

Who knows, John. Since everything I write is metaphorical, I might very well be him in some metaphorical way.

[Pierre]

That's simply an insulting and pompous remark towards everyone here, Pierre. The vast majority of Ripperologists have done thorough research and have contributed greatly to the understanding of the case. They are, for the most part kind and generous people who are willing to share their information with others in order to help. Many of their theories have strong reasoning applied to them and evidence to back it up.
So far, in your case, you seem to have contributed a lot of questions, very little in the way of answers for your theory and nothing but ridicule for most of the members of this site.

Hi SuspectZero,

But isnīt it true?

And this does not exclude that some people have done hard work or have a lot of well researched facts in their writings.

Good an evil can exist at the same time and in the same place. They can also be dimensions of the same thing.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Dear SuspectZero

I agree with you 100%.

All we get is how all who have looked at the case are failures, he does love to tell us its 127 years!. For various reason that view cannot be seen as being true, especially as many have not actually looked for the ID of the killer. Many have conducted research on other areas of the case., something the poster gives the impression of not being aware of, something which I actually do not believe is true..

However the assumption by the poster that he may have the ID when he has given NO EVIDENCE is indeed insulting.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Is "ripperologists" the same expression as "all ripperologists"?

Regards, Pierre

[SuspectZero]

Hi SuspectZero,

But isnīt it true?

And this does not exclude that some people have done hard work or have a lot of well researched facts in their writings.

Good an evil can exist at the same time and in the same place. They can also be dimensions of the same thing.

Regards, Pierre

No, Pierre, it is not true. By definition you have referred to Ripperologists as a whole in your statement. You have stated that "they have been trying to make the incredible credible." The vast majority of proposed theories contain strong evidentiary information to support them. Your statement is only true if it referred to the majority, and in order for that to be the case, you would have to convincingly disprove the majority of the theories. Show me where factually and without doubt, this has been done and only then would your statement be correct. For a supposed scientist your logic appears flawed.
Regards,
Mark

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=SuspectZero;367693]No, Pierre, it is not true. By definition you have referred to Ripperologists as a whole in your statement.

"By definition", that is by your definition. That is, if you donīt know the difference by "ripperologists" and "all ripperologists".

You have stated that "they have been trying to make the incredible credible."

Yes, ripperologists have done so. But not "all ripperologists".

The vast majority of proposed theories contain strong evidentiary information to support them.

But not for the killer I guess?

Your statement is only true if it referred to the majority, and in order for that to be the case, you would have to convincingly disprove the majority of the theories. Show me where factually and without doubt, this has been done and only then would your statement be correct. For a supposed scientist your logic appears flawed.
Regards,
Mark

Why should it only be "true" if it was referring to a majority? It could refer to anything between 20-49 percent. And anyway, I could not refer to "all ripperologists", since I donīt read ripperology. But I do know they havenīt found the killer.

Regards, Pierre

[Whitechapel]

Oh, and the absolute classic: Stride's killer put the cachous in her hand because cachous is a near-homonym for cautious, meaning the killer was clearly trying to communicate to the authorities that he was cautious!

Maybe the cachous were code for 'Catch us' rather than cautious. I am not proposing that JTR was Gollum, he could have been using 'the royal we' or 'us' refers to Schwartz sighting of Lipski and the other one who threw Liz Stride to the ground.

Hello Whitechapel,

Yes, this is an important point. Inspector Moore showed a visiting American police officer Castle Allley, to demonstrate what a labyrinth it was. In fact, he stated how easily police lines were broken, "To give you an idea of it, my men formed a circle around the spot where one of the murders took place, guarding they thought, every entrance and approach, and within a few minutes they found fifty people inside the lines. They had come in through two passageways which my men could not find." See: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

Regarding PC Andrews' failure to immediately blow his whistle, I wonder if he was simply following instructions. For instance, when PC Pennett discovered the Pinchin Street Torso he also didn't blow his whistle, for fear of creating a scene and causing a crowd to assemble. However, in the Pinchin Torso case it must have been obvious that the perpetrator was long gone, whereas with Mackenzie he must have only recently fled the scene, so therefore it could be reasoned that there was a realistic chance of apprehending him.

I think the reason that the first on scene Cross/Lechmere and Mountain/Andrews have been suggested as possible suspects is that JTR is perceived as a ghost. However the reason that JTR seems invisible is that he is not seen fleeing along the streets. However this could be because he had a second exit prepared, the entrance to a yard, he could hide in.

Nichols body was across from the entrance to Brown's stableyard
Chapman's body was found in Hanbury Street yard
Stride's body was found in Dutfield yard
Eddowes body was found in Mitre Square
Kelly's body was found in a room in Miller's Court

I noticed this because jerry mentioned that Alice McKenzie was found in front of a doorway behind some carts in Castle Alley where X marked the spot.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=279488&highlight=burrows#post279488

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=1320&highlight=burrows

I think the reason why blood was still flowing from McKenzie's neck is that JTR had to act quick. The neck was severed to the bone to the point of decapitation (with all the bodies) because he wanted them dead so they couldn't struggle and it was easier to extract organs. This process of making cuts in the body has to be factored into the timing as he had already begun to cut her open when he was disturbed by Andrews and had to use the escape route.

Btw Colin Wilson claimed to have invented the term 'ripperology' in 1972. We are all ripperologists if we are on this forum.

[Elamarna]

Btw Colin Wilson claimed to have invented the term 'ripperology' in 1972. We are all ripperologists if we are on this forum.

you may find that someone does not agree with you on that. but then again maybe he will

[SuspectZero]

[QUOTE=Pierre;367695]

No, Pierre, it is not true. By definition you have referred to Ripperologists as a whole in your statement.

"By definition", that is by your definition. That is, if you donīt know the difference by "ripperologists" and "all ripperologists".

You have stated that "they have been trying to make the incredible credible."

Yes, ripperologists have done so. But not "all ripperologists".

The vast majority of proposed theories contain strong evidentiary information to support them.

But not for the killer I guess?

Your statement is only true if it referred to the majority, and in order for that to be the case, you would have to convincingly disprove the majority of the theories. Show me where factually and without doubt, this has been done and only then would your statement be correct. For a supposed scientist your logic appears flawed.
Regards,
Mark

Why should it only be "true" if it was referring to a majority? It could refer to anything between 20-49 percent. And anyway, I could not refer to "all ripperologists", since I donīt read ripperology. But I do know they havenīt found the killer.

Regards, Pierre

I'm sorry, Pierre but perhaps you are not be familiar with the English language. When you say Ripperologists and don't quality that audience, you are referring to ALL of them, unless you say "some" or "excluding" or some other specific criteria.
I don't understand why you fail to understand this unless it is a language issue and if that's the case, fine. But if that is the case, you should sensitive to these members when you start lumping entire groups in a negatively intended sentence.
Regards,
Mark

[Mayerling]

Who knows, John. Since everything I write is metaphorical, I might very well be him in some metaphorical way.

Actually Pierre, Quentin Tarantino is a well respected and highly successful Hollywood film director. You strike me as a bloviating, total flop who probably is ashamed of anything he's published in his so-called academic career, as you have been repeatedly asked to give us the titles of these works and where they are located, but you insist on never doing so.

Jeff

[SuspectZero]

[QUOTE=Pierre;367695]

No, Pierre, it is not true. By definition you have referred to Ripperologists as a whole in your statement.

"By definition", that is by your definition. That is, if you donīt know the difference by "ripperologists" and "all ripperologists".

You have stated that "they have been trying to make the incredible credible."

Yes, ripperologists have done so. But not "all ripperologists".

The vast majority of proposed theories contain strong evidentiary information to support them.

But not for the killer I guess?

Your statement is only true if it referred to the majority, and in order for that to be the case, you would have to convincingly disprove the majority of the theories. Show me where factually and without doubt, this has been done and only then would your statement be correct. For a supposed scientist your logic appears flawed.
Regards,
Mark

Why should it only be "true" if it was referring to a majority? It could refer to anything between 20-49 percent. And anyway, I could not refer to "all ripperologists", since I donīt read ripperology. But I do know they havenīt found the killer.

Regards, Pierre

"But I do know they havenīt found the killer."

Factually incorrect because you have not proved it otherwise. Where's your proof that your statement is correct? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Provide the proof that every theory postulated is wrong and that yours is the only correct one.

[Rosella]

You might not read ripperology Pierre, but you certainly peruse the threads on this board.

Getting back to the premise of this thread, if there is one, Pierre began by surmising that Cross came across a uniformed police officer kneeling over Polly Nichols body in the process of killing her. He, Lechmere/Cross, was thereafter so terrified and traumatised by what he'd seen that he spoke the truth about seeing a policeman to PC Mizen and lied at the inquest, deceiving the coroner and police about what he had really seen.

I would like Pierre to explain to me, in non-metaphorical language please, as to why Cross remained silent for the rest of his life about this horrific incident. He did after all, live for over thirty years with this scene on his conscience. Yet, he never mentioned such an explosive scenario to any newspaper reporter, anybody so far as is known in his large family, nor to any close friends, even in old age. That is truly remarkable.

I'm also intrigued, Pierre, as to how this police officer, having killed Polly, managed to get back home without once catching the notice of any patrolling policemen in the area.

I'm presuming this man didn't live in Bucks Row or nearby, in order to slip out of a bloodstained uniform. No, because you have inferred that your Jack is of high status and therefore would have lived elsewhere than in a slum.

Did he don a cloak of invisibility to get away, perhaps across several police divisions, unnoticed by beat police, sergeants, police on point duty or indeed civilians, who might think that a bloodstained copper might be worthy of note?

[SuspectZero]

You might not read ripperology Pierre, but you certainly peruse the threads on this board.

Getting back to the premise of this thread, if there is one, Pierre began by surmising that Cross came across a uniformed police officer kneeling over Polly Nichols body in the process of killing her. He, Lechmere/Cross, was thereafter so terrified and traumatised by what he'd seen that he spoke the truth about seeing a policeman to PC Mizen and lied at the inquest, deceiving the coroner and police about what he had really seen.

I would like Pierre to explain to me, in non-metaphorical language please, as to why Cross remained silent for the rest of his life about this horrific incident. He did after all, live for over thirty years with this scene on his conscience. Yet, he never mentioned such an explosive scenario to any newspaper reporter, anybody so far as is known in his large family, nor to any close friends, even in old age. That is truly remarkable.

I'm also intrigued, Pierre, as to how this police officer, having killed Polly, managed to get back home without once catching the notice of any patrolling policemen in the area.

I'm presuming this man didn't live in Bucks Row or nearby, in order to slip out of a bloodstained uniform. No, because you have inferred that your Jack is of high status and therefore would have lived elsewhere than in a slum.

Did he don a cloak of invisibility to get away, perhaps across several police divisions, unnoticed by beat police, sergeants, police on point duty or indeed civilians, who might think that a bloodstained copper might be worthy of note?

Hi Rosella,
This of course assumes that Pierre's suspect is a PC who just happens to be living in a mansion. I doubt that Abberline or Reid or others at that level wore uniforms.

[Pierre]

You might not read ripperology Pierre, but you certainly peruse the threads on this board.

Getting back to the premise of this thread, if there is one, Pierre began by surmising that Cross came across a uniformed police officer kneeling over Polly Nichols body in the process of killing her. He, Lechmere/Cross, was thereafter so terrified and traumatised by what he'd seen that he spoke the truth about seeing a policeman to PC Mizen and lied at the inquest, deceiving the coroner and police about what he had really seen.

Hi Rosella,

It is just an hypothesis and we donīt know if Lechmere was terrified. He might just have been worried, that is to say, we donīt know his feelings. But one could consider that he had a wife and children to protect. If he got his name and adress in the papers together with a positive statement of having seen a police man, he could have gotten into trouble, since he then would have been able to identify the person he saw with Polly Nichols, if he did see someone.

I would like Pierre to explain to me, in non-metaphorical language please, as to why Cross remained silent for the rest of his life about this horrific incident. He did after all, live for over thirty years with this scene on his conscience. Yet, he never mentioned such an explosive scenario to any newspaper reporter, anybody so far as is known in his large family, nor to any close friends, even in old age. That is truly remarkable.

How do we know that?

I'm also intrigued, Pierre, as to how this police officer, having killed Polly, managed to get back home without once catching the notice of any patrolling policemen in the area.

Yes, it is intriguing. And he must have thought so himself, because he changed his MO after Polly Nichols. No more working on the street.

I'm presuming this man didn't live in Bucks Row or nearby, in order to slip out of a bloodstained uniform. No, because you have inferred that your Jack is of high status and therefore would have lived elsewhere than in a slum.

Policemen are interesting in that way. They have many comfort zones.

Did he don a cloak of invisibility to get away, perhaps across several police divisions, unnoticed by beat police, sergeants, police on point duty or indeed civilians, who might think that a bloodstained copper might be worthy of note?

The uniform was dark blue.

Regards, Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

And for 127 years ripperologists have been trying to make the incredible credible.

Regards Pierre

Do you have any valid source supporting such an opinion or is it simply yours?

Sorry Pierre, but as I would have said to any of my friends I just had to come out with the same kind of response you often serve to others. It was too easy. LOL

Ripperology is not only finding the real Ripper. It involves submitting theories, hypotheses not only concerning a specifc suspect but everything directly or indirectly related to the 5C. These proposals also cover the period, the way of life of those living in the East End, etc. Given time, you will find out how so many know so much, more than traditional historians, sociologists, forensic archeologists and many other academics may ever know. Many members went beyond their professional experience or persued it as a hobby or side-line focusing on this single case. They're not paid for doing it, so it's a hobby but not just a hobby it's a passion, the target of their knowhow.

Whenever someone comes up with a 'case closed' affirmation, that's when you discover how and why ripperologists offer us their expertise and openly share it. When an interesting theory is submitted, they quickly identify the strenghs and weaknesses. Approaches may vary, but for the great majority, it's a work in progress. In many cases, authors come up with a proposition only to make a quick buck and ripperologists hate it.

I don't consider myself as a ripperologist, but maybe one day I'll become one. In the meantime, I'm only a writer working among other stories on a Ripper fiction, enjoying such a facinating knowledge basis and admiring those who contribute to it. So please avoid serving comments such as those you made. You are simply revealing the extent of your ignorance of what Ripperolgy really is. It's OK to show us you're trying to do a serious job with your eventual theory and I must say I appreciate it a lot. But never forget, so are others and they deserve your respect.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot