|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 8:01 pm: |       |
Sarah,
You already have all the clues you need to solve the case. That's basically all I'm saying here. Everything you need is right in the case evidence. If you've studied the case you already understand, you just don't yet know how to ask yourself how you do. Getting you to ask yourself is the ? of the A?R.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 669
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:03 am: | |
David Radka,
"Sarah, You already have all the clues you need to solve the case."
Well well Saddam, heaven knows what you base that on. Tranquillizers, maybe?
"Spent a number of years studying Hegel"
That explains it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:11 am: | |
If we all have everything to solve the case then David then please enlighten us. Who was Jack the Ripper??
I don't mean to sound rude to you but it just annoys me that you act like you know who he was. If you do know who he was then I wish you'd tell us how you know. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:57 am: | |
Sarah,
God willing, I'll someday have a thesis paper on the case, called
'A?R,' which may prove of some help. It is not so much that 'I' have the solution, as that the information is available for anyone to derive the solution for themselves. That is what 'A?R' basically is, a kind of casually-written self-help workbook. I don't feel particularly special because I am in this position. Somehow the playing out of history has elected me to first make the analyses on the given information that solve the puzzle, that's all.
Saddam
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Police Constable
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 2:41 pm: | |
Damn Saddamn, You're rather confident aren't you? I'm fairly new to this board and this case, and even I came to the logical conclusion about 2 days in that I will never be able to say with any certainty, who the killer or killers were.
This, I feel, is because we are lacking evidence. Not so much because we have looked over it or missed it, but more like that it's just not around anymore to be taken into consideration. Consider this: I've heard on two or three occasions that there were more than 2 photos of MJK taken, yet, none other than the 2 survive (side note, I haven't be able to fully research that claim yet).
So please save me the time, energy and headache of doing extensive research for years and years only to simply 'miss' some bit of vital information by telling us what A?R is.. if it pans out, I know I'd be greatfull.
Perhaps, failing that, you can at the very least explain how it is you came upon this information or clue. I'd love to know.. might just save me and many others like me lots of time 
If none of these are considered acceptable to you, then I suggest the same thing Sarah did. Put up or shut up. I highly recommend keeping your pet theory to yourself (that is what should be defined as, because, let's face it.. if you really knew you'd already be published, sitting on a beach somewhere with world renoun fame and a large fortune, laughing loudly at the rest of us.. Now, as I'm fairly sure that's _not_ where you are at the moment, I'll continue to refer to it as a theory) until you are confident that it is ready for public consumption and scrutiny. Dangling carrots is a good way to loose your creditability. Especially if your theory doesn't work out in the end.
Then again, perhaps I'm being to harsh.. I am in a bad mood, what do the rest of you guy's think? Am I being to hard core?
crix0r |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 677
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Nothing is too hard core for our philosofic friend David Radka/Saddam here, Jason.
But I must admit I am a bit curious about his A?R concept; seems freaked out enough to appeal to me...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi Jason
You ask if you're being too hard core. I know the answer to your question, but I'm not going to tell you. (Clue : five crocodiles playing the bagpipes)
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 176
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 7:05 pm: | |
Sarah/Jason
The history of JTR has been littered with people who have definitively solved the case. As long as our friend Dave keeps playing mysterious with his little clues and his A?R he gets to keep playing the game of "I know something you don't know". As soon as he actually puts his case forward, chances are he becomes just another Patsy Cornball. |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 7:54 pm: | |
Just don't bother to read his postings. I no longer do. |
RoseyO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:41 pm: | |
Hi Folks,
I think what David is trying to say, is that the answer is "42".
Rosey :-)
|
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 5:06 am: | |
I just thought of this: IF Jack would read this all, how would he feel about what we've said about him?
I think he would take offence because we're probably wrong at many points , or he would fall down laughing or he would be soooo surprised about what we've got and missed
So, herewith: Jack, if you read this, don't you think it's time for co-operation??
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 680
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
Hi Petra,
Here is a fourth option: 
Seriously, can't you call him for us (but please don't use the ouija board...)? 
All the best
Jack the R... hmmm
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 1:39 pm: | |
It should be noted that Ms O'Ryan here adopts a Pythagorian position, which, while valid, may not be the only way to intepret me.
Other than that, I don't feel the other responses here are worth my response.
Saddam
|
Petra
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 1:48 pm: | |
Another big question, would Jack ever wish us all the best?
Besides, my friends gave me a SCARY FREAKY CREEPY little note, that says: see you
and they told me they tried automatic writing.
The 'spirit' told them to give it to me.
This 'spirit' didn't want to say its name, but just 'you know me' 
Don't know what to think of this.
If it's Jack, and he's serious about see you, I'll take my pen and noteblock for a good looong intervieuw.  |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Saddamn -
Glad you think my response wasn't worthy of a rebuttal. Your silence on any of the issues raised speaks volumes.
I, and this is just me, would like to note publicly that dear ol' Saddam was asked to come forth with his info/theory/idea/thoughts and found the request 'not worth his response'.
Now, I'm not a genius, but where I come from, that's called coping out. If your idea and theories are so strong and valid, let them be known. Let them stand up for themselves. Of course, this must have proved too terribly much.
I find it disheartening that you think you have solved the case, yet, when asked to come forward and prove it, you fail. It's a shame too, I thought you'd be able to save me a lot of time, money and effort by simply telling me who dun itŪ. Now I'll be forced to spend said resources... Damn the luck. As a side note, if we ever figure out beyond a doubt who our killer was, and it turns out you were right, does that mean we can charge you for any money we had to spend in research and travel? I only ask because you, if correct, could save us all a bunch. Didn't think so.
Alas, I think I'll be forced to take Donald and Alan's advice and ignore your post. I'm now going through the casebook and looking up everything you've ever posted. I'll make my final decision once I've absorbed all that..
crix0r |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:19 am: | |
I thought this was supposed to be about who the ripper hated anyway.
Is it possible that the only person the ripper hated was himself? If you hate yourself, then you would think that anyone who approached you or made any attempt to be nice to you was being sarcastic and just wanting to upset you so you may want to lash out at them. Just a thought. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 14
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:04 pm: | |
Indeed, Sarah is correct. However, I could not let that incident go on unanswered. Buuuuuuuuut to get back on subject, I'm not so sure that he hated anyone or thing. Though the idea that he was fairly angry at himself does sound interesting.
Perhaps it was his lack of hate/love that had something to do with it. To wit: I like chicken. It's good for me and taste good to. I know for a fact that my lunch today has been, what some would call, horribly mutilated and killed. Do I personally feel for the chicken? No. Did the people who killed the chicken hate it? Highly doubtful. It was probably an emotionless killing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to draw conclusions between a chicken slaughter house and JTR.. and I know I'm leaving a lot out, but it's just a quick example. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to hate a thing to horribly mutiliated it. Could be morbid curiousity, or lack of emotion, or any number of things
course, I could be wrong.. anyone?
crix0r |
Sarah Long
Police Constable
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Actually that is a very good point Jason. Lack of emotion can do funny things to people. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 15
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:48 pm: | |
Indeed Sarah, it can do funny things to folks.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I would have to imagine that fairly well balance person would need to be fairly numb to carry on with something like JTR, and a fairly unbalance person would need only to justify the means to himself. Of course, that's a wild guess on my part.. I could be way off
crix0r |
Petra
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 1:06 pm: | |
Indeed, if your emotions are somehow vanished, what 'moral' would be left?
None.
OR, being AWARE of what he did and HATING himself for it, is a good option too.
Like, after the first murder, he he knew what he did, and was like: 'ohm I'll NEVER EVER do this again!' But when he somehow committed the 2nd murder, he realized it, and maybe he thought something like: 'I shouldn't do it, but I can't stop! No control, and you made me do it! But even though it's your fault, I am doing it!'
See? Thinking you shouldn't do it, makes you do it worse.. |
Sarah Long
Police Constable
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 6:18 am: | |
I'm not sure about that Petra. If he didn't want to kill and hated himself for doing it, then he wouldn't do it, unless he had some kind of illness. I've done things before I'm not proud of and I've hated myself for doing them so I haven't done them again. I was thinking more along the lines of him having a deep hated for himself through lack of confidence or something. Maybe he was mistreated as a child or something. If it was through lack of emotion he wouldn't hate himself or anyone, so he couldn't do something then regret it. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 180
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
Jason, I think I should clarify something here in the name of fairness. Ignoring Mr Radka when he claims to have solved the case is one thing. I pay no attention to those posts, but only because until I can independently assess his solution I don't see how I can do any differently. I cannot comment on a theory if I don't know what it is.
However, ignoring Mr Radka himself would be a mistake. He has been in this game a lot longer than me and he has amassed a great deal of knowledge and that has to be respected. Some of his posts on other subjects have been of great interest. |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Alan,
I think it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if he has to be respected. Personally I have no respect for someone who throws in occasional nonsence and acts like he knows more than everyone else without giving evidence. I would possibly have more respect for him if he actually told us what he was going on about. He just wants to annoy us, that is perfectly obvious and I have no time for people like that, which is why I shall not be commmenting on him anymore. We are now trying to bring the topic back to it's original point. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 17
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 2:26 pm: | |
Hello Alan, Sarah -
I wouldn't say I do not respect him, I would simply say that I will no longer give him and his ideas much credit until proven otherwise. I have had the opportunity to skim through the old message board and some of his posts are clear and coherent, they actually make valid points too
What I was saying was that until he can come forward with a valid argument other than "I know, I've been chosen, A?R" it will be difficult for me personally to give his idea's on whom the killer and his motives were any credence. Facts are facts and I do share some of his opinions on certain things, but I will, in my mind, be hard to sell on any theory he might propose.
Now, having said that, and under Sarah's suggestion, let's move onto who we thought the perp was angry at
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on November 18, 2003) |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 382
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Folks,
I know this thread is about hate but to me it seems as if he was enjoying himself.
Its that "stepping out of the bounds of morality and enjoying it" that I bang on about.
Is that not what anyone else is finding ??
Monty
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
