|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 7:42 am: | 
|
Hi Everbody,
I trust Brian you will not mind me borrowing your line, but my point is we seem to be wandering all over the place in trying to understand this complex subject.
My point being, as I see it taking in all the clues , evidence,that we have at our disposal, there is a distinct possibility we are completly off track.
Tabram , Nichols, and Chapman were so similar in appearence that is quite likely that these murders were the work of one man, and judging by the letter dated the 24th sept he was after Chapman and he was feeling remorse.
Strides killing taking what we know into account, was proberly the work of the good samaritan who appeared to interfere when she was brutally accosted by the half intoxicated man.
I am now convinced with thanks to Joan that the word heard was not Lipski, or Lizzie, but actually LIZ-KEY, that being the case then its practicly
certain that Kidney was her assailiant, but as the key was still on Strides person , he would not have been her Killer.
Regarding Eddowes , I believe she was killed by the same person as Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman not for any reason but for self presevation. Remember that when Chapman was killed , Eddowes and Her feller Kelly were hop picking, and on returning to Whitechapel Eddowes declares she thinks she knows the identity of the killer.
My point being if The killer lived amongst them in the area , he may well have become aware that this woman who may well have had an insight into the killer of Chapman, may be a danger to his liberty, and on hearing of her arrest that night, waited near the police station, for her release, the rest being history.
With regard to Mary Kelly, I personally do not believe that this was a Ripper killing at all, nor now do I believe that Barnett killed her.
Taking all the evidence into account.
1] she was fearful of the plight she was in, and she intending to do away with herself, She said, ' Joe was a good fellow , but she would have to leave him'
I believe the possible events that night were as follows. Kelly was out drinking as normal, late that night she was approached by someone who she was aquainted with who asked her if he could use her room for an abortion, he knew of someone who was desperate for one , and if she allowed him use of her room and assisted him he would give her a good sum of money, I believe that they met this young woman outside the Ringers public house and all three of them once they convinced the pregnant person all would be well, entered Kellys room, then things went from bad to worse, the operation went wrong, the woman died, and as soon as the abortionist was aware of this , he lashed into the already dead woman, and Kelly in shock cried out Oh Murder' On considering there was no other option, and that she would have been an accomplice in a illegal practice which resulted in a death, she left her clothes in the room on a chair that she normally wore and changed into some others, which may have include some of the dead womans, proberly as the victim was a respectable dressed person , the other garments were proberly taken from the scene by the abortionist.
Therefore we are left with a badly disfigured corpse, completely unreconizable, laying on Kellys bed, next to Kellys clothes.
Regarding Mrs Maxwell if she saw Kelly along With Maurice Lewis, and another person in the morning then either they were all lying or Kelly was still alive, Question If she had nothing to hide why would she not show herself?.
This Thread may be somewhat different to what we have become accostomed to, but I feel that taking everything into account, the suggestions I have mentioned are entirely possible.
To sum up there were five murders , committed by two seperate people , and one bungled abortion, no wonder this case is still unsolved.
Regards Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:59 am: |
|
Rich,
Actually, it was this sort of post that got me thinking about "common sense" in the first place.
Everything in this post is a mish-mash of assumptions, half-truths, odd interpretations and just general hogwash.
I'll try and pick through it as best I can.
Tabram , Nichols, and Chapman were so similar in appearence that is quite likely that these murders were the work of one man, and judging by the letter dated the 24th sept he was after Chapman and he was feeling remorse. What are you basing this off of, Rich? The death photos? We only have one photograph of Annie Chapman while she was alive. Post-mortem photographs often look nothing like the individual when they are alive. Here's a case in point: Would you believe this is Marilyn Monroe? So we have no idea if they actually did look alike. Second, you are basing the idea that the Ripper was after Chapman on a letter - and we cannot prove that ANY of the letters were from Jack, and most of us tend to agree that if any of them were actually legitimate, the Lusk letter is it.
Next up: "Strides killing taking what we know into account, was proberly the work of the good samaritan who appeared to interfere when she was brutally accosted by the half intoxicated man.
I am now convinced with thanks to Joan that the word heard was not Lipski, or Lizzie, but actually LIZ-KEY, that being the case then its practicly
certain that Kidney was her assailiant, but as the key was still on Strides person , he would not have been her Killer."
Again, this is all based on witness testimony, which is less than reliable. The Lipski/Lizzie thing is just interpretation - our interpretation of a witnesses interpretation. Ever play the telephone chain game?
"Regarding Eddowes , I believe she was killed by the same person as Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman not for any reason but for self presevation. Remember that when Chapman was killed , Eddowes and Her feller Kelly were hop picking, and on returning to Whitechapel Eddowes declares she thinks she knows the identity of the killer.
My point being if The killer lived amongst them in the area , he may well have become aware that this woman who may well have had an insight into the killer of Chapman, may be a danger to his liberty, and on hearing of her arrest that night, waited near the police station, for her release, the rest being history." C'mon Rich. Do you know what every single one of your neighbors believes on the Iraq issue? Can you honestly tell me that in an area of 400,000 people that word would have gotten back to the killer than some random whore thought she knew who the Ripper was and he viewed this as such a threat that he had to silence her? C'mon.
Then you come up with this long meandering spiel about how Kelly wasn't really Kelly, it was an abortion gone bad. Again, c'mon.
This Thread may be somewhat different to what we have become accostomed to, but I feel that taking everything into account, the suggestions I have mentioned are entirely possible.
To sum up there were five murders , committed by two seperate people , and one bungled abortion, no wonder this case is still unsolved.
Again, we've got an entire post of supposition, half truths, and mangled facts masquerading as a "possible solution". Another solution that is equally possible as this one is that the entire thing was a hoax - there were no bodies, no murders, no Jack the Ripper. Hell, even London could be just smoke and mirrors. We're all just talking about a mass illusion.
Possible? Yes. Probable? No.
When I talk about common sense, I mean trying to figure out what the simplest solution to this problem is. Not the most fanciful. Not the most exciting. Not the most elaborate.
The sheer number of variables that had to come together perfectly in order for the Ripper to commit these crimes and get away clean are so vast that it almost precludes any kind of planning. Each event needs to be looked at as a singular event - not as part of a whole. We need to break down the whole into its parts and examine each of them in turn, determining what the simplest answer is. And we need to do it in a way that minimizes our chance of errors.
That's the gist of my common sense approach. It's not fully fleshed out, as I'm up to my neck in National Rifle Association and MEBA fund raising data, but I'm still working on it.
Theories like these are fun to talk about, but they are completely unprovable, and easily refuted. They're definitely not "common sense".
B
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:47 am: |
|
The simplest way to disprove Richard's abortion theory is to understand that, according to Dr. Bond's autopsy report, the body found in Kelly's room had not been pregnant.
Wolf. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
Brian, with respect you have read a post ,and tore it to pieces, because it does not fit in your line of thoughts, I have researched Jack since the mid Sixties, and in the course of that time I have had many theorys, and to be honest some of them were hogwash, but some of them were of merit also.
As I have said many times my aim on these boards is to keep my assumptions entertaining, and to gather for and against points, so that different areas of this case can be debated.
My Post I agree is different and will be seen by many to be out of line with general opinion, but it is my opinion, that everything I mentioned is plausible, and although I would agree their are assumptions, and what would seem far fetched opinions, the recorded facts [ and that is all we have to go on] are present.
Wolf..
I do not pretend to be a medical person , but the mutulations on kelly, surely would not give any clue whether or not the victim was pregnant.
We have although rumours in the area at the time that the victim was pregnant, so remember the saying 'There is no smoke without fire'.
so to sum up , I stick to my conclusions , and If members can not see any merit in my suggestions, I am happy to accept that conclusion.
Best Regards Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Richard,
I tore that particular post to pieces because it is indicative of the kind of speculation that is not based in fact that frustrates me. This is business, not personal.
You stated that "the recorded facts are present". Where? What recorded facts did you base this theory on? We have the "fact" that the women looked alike. This can't be proven. We have the "fact" that the Sept. 24 letter shows that he was after Chapman. This also can't be proven, and the legitimacy of the letter also can't be proven. We have the "fact" that Stride was assaulted by a half intoxicated man. This can't be proven, as it is based on a witness statement and we can't even be sure that the woman that Schwartz saw WAS Stride. We have the whole list of random things you site as being possible with the Kelly murder, none of which fit with any of the facts we have. As Wolf said - the body in the room, which you dispute as being Kellys - wasn't even pregnant. So there goes that whole line of reasoning. In addition, since only the heart, and not the uterus, were taken in this case, despite whatever "rumors" there may have been, if the autopsy stated that the woman was not pregnant, it's as close to fact as we can get. The only recorded facts that seem to be right here were the names of the victims. How can this be called a "common sense approach"?
It doesn't matter how long you've been researching the case - since the 60's or since last year - if you post something that's radically outside the bounds of common sense, I'm going to call you on it. Your name could be Paul Begg, Stewart Evans or Stephen Hawking - if you post something under the auspicies of common sense and it ISN'T common sense, or its just plain wrong, it needs to be addressed and refuted.
For too long we have let people get away with outlandish theories and proposals that aren't based in fact because "we can't prove them wrong". That's a logical fallacy. There are too many errors, to many omissions and to many false assumptions in this case to keep doing this.
B |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Brian
I enjoyed your use of the word 'hogwash'... immensely.
I love old English, it says so much. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 5:58 am: |
|
Hi Brian,
I respect your views, I believe I would be correct in assuming , that you are not a lover of assumptions.With respect the whole of the Ripper case is assumptions.
You state my post comes into the outlandish theory section , but I must beg to differ.
The pictures of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman, are similar in appearence, in both profile and build, true they are death masks, but resemblence is there.
The letter dated 24th sept , is most likely to have been an original, simply because it was the first correspondence , assuming you disregard the 17th sept one , [which most of us do]
if you take the words 'I have found the woman that I was after that was Chapman' that would imply that the killer was after her .
Regarding Stride, I feel that LIZ-KEY, is a fair interpretation of the word shouted out, to suggest that it may not have been Stride that schwartz saw outside Dutfields yard, or that he may have got the wrong day that I would consider Hogwash.
To suggest that Kidney may have been the assailiant who pushed Stride about is entirely plausible, and to suggest that he proberly did not kill her , as the key was still on her person after she was killed is again so.
Regarding Eddowes you claim is most unlikely that she was killed to silience her , in a area of four hundred thousand people, how would he have come to hear that, I can answer that in saying we do not know how close a circle of people was the killer of these women , and the victims in , also word of mouth travels fast.
Finally Kelly.
If you take the opinion at the time and press reports[ assumtions]Kellys room was apparently hired out for the evening by someone who resided at 26, Dorset Street, the woman was not known in the area.
Mrs Kennedy stated on entering Dorset Street, to visit by the Britania she saw a young man , and a respectably dressed woman talking with a not so fancy dressed woman , who wore no bonnet standing close by, The man said 'Are you coming' whereas the woman started to walk away in the opposite direction to which the man wanted her to go.
Added to that Mrs Maxwells sighting also Maurice Lewis , and a woman identified in some reports as a Tailoress Mrs Goode, all point to My theory being at least worthy of print.
Regarding the lack of evidence that the victim was pregnant question. Can it be assertained that the victim could not possibly be in the early stages of pregnancy?. given the intensive damage to the body.
I could go on , but I could find myself making more assumptions.
To sum up I believe I have based my conclusions on peoples observations at the time, for that I am afraid is all we have to go on.
I feel I am contributing to these boards by raising new and fresh ideas even if there will be many like yourself who wont share my beliefs.
I am always looking for possible scenerios , and interpreting this case in different ways , and I certainly will change my opinion from time to time. but surely this is part of the fun in this subject, Every post is speculation, its all based on assumptions, for unfortunatly none of us were present in Whitechapel in that autumm of 88.
Best wishes Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:51 am: |
|
Richard,
Let me respond piece by piece to your post, so I can point out what I believe are the flaws in your reasoning.
First, let me say this. I do not completely abhor assumptions. You are right - they are necessary in this case. But when you make an assumption, it must be based on some kind of hard fact.
A good assumption: The Ripper was a man. This is based on the fact whoever killed these women did so with tremendous force and speed, nearly decapitating Annie Chapman. This assumption is generally accepted.
A bad assumption: "The letter dated 24th sept , is most likely to have been an original, simply because it was the first correspondence , assuming you disregard the 17th sept one , [which most of us do] if you take the words 'I have found the woman that I was after that was Chapman'that would imply that the killer was after her." What about this letter, besides it being first, makes it any more credible than the other thousands that came in? And considering it reads:
Dear Sir
I do wish to give myself up
I am in misery with nightmare
I am the man who committed
all these murders in the last
six months my name is (black silhouette of a coffin, with the words: 'so and so' around it)
I am a slaughterer (the word horse is inserted above slaughterer) and work at (another black box with the word 'name' above it) (then a long black box with the word 'address' above it) I have found the woman I wanted
that is Chapman and I done what
I called slaughtered her but if
anyone comes I will surrender but I
am not going to walk to the station
by myself so I am your truly (another black coffin drawing)
(second page)
keep the Boro road clear
or I might take a
trip up there
(silhouette of a knife, with the words: 'photo of knife' around it)
this is the knife that
I done these murders
with it is a small
handle with a large long
blade sharpe both sides
What makes it so credible? Here he states that Chapman was the one he was after. He states that he's responsbile for all the murders from the last "six months" - meaning that he accepts responsibility for the murder of Emma Smith, which we know he couldn't have committed. Furthermore, he says that he's finished killing, and that he may go up the Boro road, which he never did. Yet this letter is more authentic than others simply because it is first? There's a gap in your logic.
The definition of the word possible is:
pos·si·ble adj.
1. capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2.) Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3.) Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4.) Of uncertain likelihood.
I grant you that everything you've said is possible. But here's the rub. Not everything that is possible is probable.
Here's the definition of probable:
prob·a·ble adj.
1.) Likely to happen or to be true: War seemed probable in 1938. The home team, far ahead, is the probable winner.
2.) Likely but uncertain; plausible.
3.) Theology. Of or relating to opinions and actions in ethics and morals for whose lawfulness intrinsic reasons or extrinsic authority may be adduced.
You asked what hard facts do we have in the case. We have a plethora: we know for sure the location of the where the bodies were found. We have the autopsy reports. We have the police files. We have tons of evidence that is based on more than assumption, presumption and supposition. So when we do make assumptions and suppositions, we should at the very least base them on some sort of reliable fact.
With that being said, let's look at the individual pieces of your theory.
1.) The pictures of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman, are similar in appearence, in both profile and build, true they are death masks, but resemblence is there. I've already shown you a famous example of what death does to a person. Just look at the photos of Annie Chapman alive and her dead - death distorts them. In addition, there is still much debate on whether Tabram was a Ripper victim or not. And Kelly, Stride and Eddowes looked nothing like the other three. So appearance cannot be a solid link between the victims. There were other, more solid links, such as location they resided, line of work (prostitution), etc.
2.) The letter dated 24th sept , is most likely to have been an original. I've already shot this one down.
3.) Regarding Stride, I feel that LIZ-KEY, is a fair interpretation of the word shouted out, to suggest that it may not have been Stride that schwartz saw outside Dutfields yard, or that he may have got the wrong day that I would consider Hogwash. Rich, as Bob Hinton, Scott Medine and a number of other important contributors have pointed out, witness testimony is not always reliable. In fact, most of the time, its not reliable at all. And considering that if Schwartz was off in his recollection of the time by 15 minutes, his testimony is useless. Considering that his testimony doesn't completely match other witness descriptions and because he didn't come forward immediately, we don't know what impact press reports and conversations with his neighbors and friends might had on his memories. It's just not safe to accuse Kidney of murder on the grounds of one not totally reliable witness. I give you an "A" for creativity, but we can't say you are "probably" right. As for the "Liz-key" and "Lipski" argument - you can't have it both ways. If Schwartz was a good enough witness to have actually been correct in what he reported seeing, why do you think he mistook "Liz-key" for "Lipski"? Either he's a good witness, or he's not. You've got to pick one.
4.) To suggest that Kidney may have been the assailiant who pushed Stride about is entirely plausible, and to suggest that he proberly did not kill her , as the key was still on her person after she was killed is again so. I don't consider it to be "plausible". It's "possible". And as Kidney had previously had record of spousal abuse, don't you think it is "possible" that the police checked him out and cleared him of wrong-doing? I think that fact is just as possible as yours. Maybe not probable, but possible.
5.) Regarding Eddowes you claim is most unlikely that she was killed to silience her , in a area of four hundred thousand people, how would he have come to hear that, I can answer that in saying we do not know how close a circle of people was the killer of these women , and the victims in , also word of mouth travels fast. Rich, now here you are stretching it very far. To get a single message that "Cathernie Eddowes of Whitechapel thinks you are the Ripper" from her mouth, said to one person all the way to the Ripper - whom she probably did not know - is highly unlikely. Not only that your logic is fault here. Just because we cannot prove something to be untrue does not make it true. Besides, how many tens of thousands of people uttered the same words? Why didn't Jacky kill all of them?
6.) Finally Kelly. If you take the opinion at the time and press reports[assumtions]Kellys room was apparently hired out for the evening by someone who resided at 26, Dorset Street, the woman was not known in the area. But how can we? The press reports and rumors were time and again proven wrong and untrue. With the desire to get to press, and the lack of positive confirmation of the facts from the police involved (upon their penalty of being sacked by the force if they even so much as spoke to the press) creates a lot of doubt about these rumors and press reports.
Mrs Kennedy stated on entering Dorset Street, to visit by the Britania she saw a young man , and a respectably dressed woman talking with a not so fancy dressed woman , who wore no bonnet standing close by, The man said 'Are you coming' whereas the woman started to walk away in the opposite direction to which the man wanted her to go. Again - witness statements, the veracity of which we cannot be sure of.
Added to that Mrs Maxwells sighting also Maurice Lewis , and a woman identified in some reports as a Tailoress Mrs Goode, all point to My theory being at least worthy of print. Again, more witness testimony, the realability of which is unknown.
7.) Regarding the lack of evidence that the victim was pregnant question. Can it be assertained that the victim could not possibly be in the early stages of pregnancy?. given the intensive damage to the body.
I could go on , but I could find myself making more assumptions. Like I said before, the uterus - to my knowledge - was not missing, so a post mortem would have been able to determine if she was pregnant or not.
8.) To sum up I believe I have based my conclusions on peoples observations at the time, for that I am afraid is all we have to go on. Some of those observations are better than others Rich. You know the case well enough to know where the pitfalls lie. You based this theory on a lot of unsubstantiated possibilities, and came up with a probability at the end. It just doesn't add up that way.
Every post is speculation, its all based on assumptions, for unfortunatly none of us were present in Whitechapel in that autumm of 88.
As I said before, some speculation - that based on facts - is okay. If we throw every scheme out there we think of, we're no better than the charlatans that have made Ripperology such a difficult subject and hobby for us to pursue. We owe it to the newcomers, those of us who've been doing this for a while, to be as accurate as possible. They don't know how many false roads we've been led down before.
Please don't take this personally - I'm critiquing the idea, not the man. But this idea is, to use AP's favorite phrase, hogwash.
B
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Richard, I am not attempting to gang up on you but, as Brian has pointed out more than once, Kelly's - or at least the woman in the bed - uterus was found intact. The intact uterus would have shown signs of pregnancy had the signs indeed existed. As Dr. Bond makes no mention of these signs it is safe to assume that the woman was not pregnant.
One might attempt to argue that the medical examination missed signs of pregnancy but this view would have to be based on something a bit more tangible than "rumours in the area." Unless these rumours came from competent medical men who had actually examined the body then I am afraid that they must be discarded or at least used with extreme caution.
Wolf. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 4:07 am: |
|
Hi Gents,
Fair comment, on your posts.
Regarding the pregnancy point,how can we be certain that Dr Bond relayed publicly the truth, remarks made such as ' There are facts present here that were lacking in the other murders , for if we make public all the facts of this case , then justice could be impaired.[ Not a full accurate quote but similar].
Also there is evidence that the killer may have had an accomplice in this murder. Why?.
Gentleman. I doubt if the truth , or evidence if present would ever have been released to the media, the murder would have been shocking enough, without stating that the killer also killed a baby.
Also besides that I repeat the shocking mutalation of the victim, whether the uterus was intact or not, could have blinded the possibility of an recent abortion.
Regards Richard. |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:03 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Don't know if you need the support here but I actually think your abortion theory is a very good one. It would explain a lot. I don't have time to go into all that now but I think you know what I mean.
Brian, just because there is no fact for something, doesn't mean it didn't happen and if people didn't make assumptions about this case then there would be no point maintaining an interest in JTR as all the facts have been relayed with no more coming into sight.
Regards, Sarah |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Sarah
I'm sorry but you are sounding like Groucho Marx signing a contract here.
The third party agrees to the second party that the first party disagrees therefore the second party agrees to the first party that they agree with the third party but disagree with the first party which is me so I declare the whole caboodle to be hogwash and disagree most emphatically with all parties concerned and hence I book passage to Peru immediately.
I think that is what you are saying? |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:10 am: |
|
All i was saying Wolf is that lack of evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm also not saying it did happen as it probably didn't. I'm not agreeing that it did happen and i'm sure that Richard also wasn't suggesting that is what happened. As Brian said, we need to look at the facts and they are that a woman was found mutilated in 13 Millers Court and witnesses "saw" MJK on the previous morning wearing clothes they didn't regonise. So Richard's theory fits in nicely with the facts. I don't see the problem here. It's probably a very fantastical theory and as I said I'm not saying it happened but we are entitled to our opinions and theorys as that is all we have these days. Do not have a go at people for their ideas. I was only saying that Richard's idea was an interesting one, not that it probably happened. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean others can't agree. |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 4:43 am: |
|
Just realised I wrote "previous" morning instead of "following" morning.  |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Sorry Sarah
your sentiments are quite correct and I apologise for my untoward attitude.
Please rest assured that I will punish myself very severely tonight by forcing myself to drink an entire bottle of SSB.
Which is of course what happened last time.
Quite honestly I feel I should be banned from posting after ten at night because the Spanish brandy makes me frisky.
I shall ban myself.
Once again, my humble apologies for being priggish. |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:43 am: |
|
That is quite alright, just don't do it again or I shall be forced to take my knuckle dusters to you.  |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Ooooh SSB!
Want any help?
Cheers, Mark (with a very dry throat) |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 4:23 am: |
|
 |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 5:06 am: |
|
Can I just point out that it is not a FACT that people saw MJK after she was supposed dead. To be accurate, certain individuals CLAIMED to have seen her.
This may be interesting, but they may have been mistaken, got the wrong day, made it up (publicity seeking is not unknown) or been confused for various reasons. We have a number of examples, and comment, on local inhabitants taking over or repeating as their own, statements by others, even when those statements were perhaps of dubious reliability originally.
We must be cautious here, especially we we want to take a "common sense" approach.
Phil
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Richard, I think you're really on the right track.
Tabram and Chapman are so alike that there's obviously a link between them. Nichols does resemble a dead prostitute as well.
Liz-ki for Lipski, genius Richard. I wish I'd thought of that one. Obviously Kidney's pet name for her and obviously he must have been the killer.
Of course Eddowes knew who Jack the Ripper was, she said she did, didn't she? That's obviously why she went with the Ripper of the night of her murder, so she could catch him when he tried to murder her. Which he did.
The only point that I disagree with is that the "Kelly" muderer was an abortionist. Now I have studied this since the mid-sixties and it absolutely apparent to me that Mary Kelly was killed by an alien.
Her murder is very like the cow slayings of Roswell and I believe that they were running tests on her in that little lodging house in Miller's Court.
I have also been researching another theory of mine, that aliens abducted Richard III from Bosworth field in 1485, took him forward in time and let him loose on Whitechapel. Richard's motive obviously is impotence. Think about it, he was quoted as saying "Therefore since I cannot prove a lover/ And entertain these fair well spoken days/ I am determined to prove a villain/ And hate the idle pleasures of these days"
I know if we knock our heads together Richard we could really come up with incredibly credible theories. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
