|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | 
|
Forgive me if anybody has brought this up before, but I couldn't find it anywhere on the boards.
Why is the theory that all the victims were killed by different people so disregarded? I don't necessarily support it and I'm not saying at all the killers worked together, but the witness descriptions are different for the canonical five, but that’s not just why I’m questioning. Problem is, like many people know, witness descriptions can be VERY inaccurate.
-Phil-
|
Chuck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 10:51 am: |
|
But the murders are too similar. The five are. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
Phil,
There are a number of reasons why this theory has been disregarded.
First, the crimes do not appear to have a traditional motive. The women were prostitutes, they were destitute, and they would not have had anything of value to a killer. The fact that they were all women and prostitutes is a pattern that begins to indicate a motive. I believe these were sexually motivated serial crimes.
That being said, the next biggest block to the different hands theory is that the probability that there would be at least 7 different sexually movtivated killers (one each for the canonical victims, 1 for Tabmam, and the Pinchin street torso killer) is astronomical - in the billions to one against realm. Even knowing that there definitely were at least two - the Ripper and the Torso killer - in the same city, let alone the same geographical area is extremely improbable at best.
The best evidence that we have is the crime scene data, as provided by the Met and the medical examiners. Using that, it is fairly easy to see that while the descriptions of the witnesses vary, the modus operandi and the signature of the killings are both extremely similiar.
That's why I believe it not to be credible, and I think many would agree.
B |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 11:23 am: |
|
Brian---Personally, I think the statistical argument is invalid for a number of reasons. Following your argument to its logical conclusion, one would come up with William Bury as the murderer, as it is 'astronomical' that a mutilator & sexually motivated killer would be living in the East End at the time of the Ripper murders, and commit a similar act a couple of months later.
I tend to think we only dimly appreciate the hysteria of Aug-Dec., 1888.
Human behavior is not a random event, and violence doesn't take place in a vaccum. Besides, Spitalfields & Whitechapel were far from being random geographical areas; they were red-light districts that would attract the dregs of society--tens of thousands moving in & out of the area in a single year. This would include criminals, lunatics, alcoholics, etc. If you were talking about Ogden, Utah, you would have a more valid point.
In Johannasburg, South Africa, there wasn't a serial murderer for years, and suddenly there is an epidemic of them, all working the same area; the murder of women is rare in London, and yet, on the night of the 'double event' there was actually three women killed with their throats slashed. It would be a misunderstanding of statistics to argue they were by the same hand.
|
Ellie Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 10:01 am: |
|
Is it possible that one of the earlier murders, such as Martha Tabram or Polly Nichols, spawned copycats who wanted to stir up police investigations? The same thing happened with the letters sent to the police and even today, with crop circles (yes I know its not the same category) |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 1:41 am: |
|
I've been doing research on other serial killers and what I find amazing about the Ripper killings is how uniform they are. The hillside strangler picked out a variety of women (and girls) of varying ages. The Boston Strangler left his "bow tie calling card", but again the victims varied in age and killing situation. Most striking is Tommy Lynn Sells, a serial killer I came into personal contact with before he was caught when I lived in Del Rio, Texas. He attended my church and his final victim was a girl that also attended the church. He followed absolutely no pattern at all. He killed women, men, children, newborns. Sometimes one at a time, sometimes in groups. He used various weapons and various motives (i.e. sometimes he robbed his victims, some he raped, others he just killed out of anger). I think all the suspected Ripper murders could easily all be one man. |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Tabram - Soldier?
Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - Same hand (JtR)
Kelly, - likely JtR, but ....(?)
Stride, McKenzie, Coles, - very similar.
Mylett, - (?)
Torso, (3 or 4 bodies?) - same hand.
- Could there really be 4 or 5 killers loose at the same time?.....or
- Could there really be one killer with so many signatures?
Both questions seem implausible.....
Does anyone have a rational 3rd proposition?
Regards, Jon
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 175
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jon
I can picture the following:
Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, (Carrie Brown)- same hand (JTR)
Emma Smith, Stride- street thugs or gangs.
Torso-3 to 5-same hand.(very different signature)
McKenzie, Coles,-copycat and/or street gangs.
Mylett-(?)(random).
I can understand the extreme overkill of Kelly by the fact that the killer was indoors and could give free reign to his imagination and fantasies. But, Brown was indoors as well so unless the killer felt rushed because he was seen by the layabouts in the lobby...
Best
Gary |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Jon, I agree with some of your conclusions but just
regarding the canonical 5:
1) Nichols: JTR
2) Chapman: JTR
3) Stride: Somebody else-Michael Kidney?
4) Eddowes: JTR
5) Kelly- Barnett(make it seem like a JTR killing)
So, maybe there were 3 JTR killings and one jealous murder (Barnett) and one regualr, domestic killing. (Kidney)
-Phil |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Hi Phil.
This Kelly murder is what I have always been on the fence about.
There are so many little details that appear, to me at least, as inconsistancies.
I have argued many times in the past against Barnett being Jack, but always allowed for the reservation that he may, just may, have murdered Kelly.
Though, I honestly cannot commit to holding the possibility as a 'theory'. It's enough to admit it is 'just possible'.
I am intrigued by the, what I call 'personal' details in this one particular murder.
The removal of the heart, thats personal.
Kelly wearing a chemise, thats personal, her clothes neatly 'folded'?, certainly no evidence of a struggle in that respect. The placement of the removed tissue & organs, not haphazardly discarded. If not actually removed with care certainly appear to have been placed with care.
Why the killer spent so much time with her where they could have been interrupted more than once, thats a personal detail, it like she knew him.
Something personal here that we might have overlooked, maybe its the way I perceive things but its not the similarities to the Ripper killings that interest me, its the differences.
(Like before, the uterus was removed, if the uterus was immaterial it would have been left in place. But for some reason it was left behind.)
However, similarities can be reproduced, or just lucky guesswork but differences tell a tale.
Unfortunately, we are not understanding the lingo.
Regards, Jon
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
The trouble with 'personal', is that what you or I or anyone normal might consider to be a personal act between the killer and a victim, that suggests to us that he actually knew this victim, may simply be a sign that he thought of his victim as a personal possession, and in his mind he could also have seen her as an intimate acquaintance of his once she was dead. She could become as intimate and 'known' to him as the individual circumstances allowed. So he could have taken his chances with Eddowes to make it personal, by marking her face, but would have had far more scope with Kelly, when he found himself alone with her dead body and indoors. She could have become anyone he wanted her to, from complete stranger to the mother or lover he adored or hated, after the sweep of the knife that stopped her being who she really was - stopped her being anyone at all. He didn't need to have known her in life to make her personal to him, and to him alone. A lump of clay that he could break into pieces and fashion into his ideal personal shape.
Love,
Caz |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 221
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Hello Caz and All
The idea of a serial killer seeking to possess his victim as a personal object for the purposes of his own use is consistant with the way certain serial killers act.
David Berkowitz believed that those he killed became his personal objects for eternity. The Zodiac stated that each victim he killed turned into his personal slave in the afterlife. Jeffrey Dahmer could not dispose of his victims, he had to keep their mutilated bodies in a freezer or place a victims head in a cooking pot in a personal gesture to satisfy whatever fantasies and desires he projected upon his victims. Dahmer went the whole way and ate parts of his victims in the ultimate act of possession and incorporation into himself.
Mary Kelly was obliterated as a human being and this makes some insist she knew her killer. Kate Eddowes had her face mutilated as well as her body. Organs were removed and taken away by her killer. Recall that he took the time to nick her eyelids in a very personal act. If it were not for time constraints her killer could have butchered her in a fashion very similar to Mary Kelly. Yet no-one seriously insists that her killer knew her.
The object of a certain type of serial killers desire becomes the object of his fantasies. These fantasies often involve imaginary personal interactions with the victims.
I believe simply that JTR was just one of this particular type of serial murderers. We often try to think out a rational motive for these killers. What rational mind could conceive of what was done to Mary Kelly.
I know that I am speaking in generalities about serial killers and that each one is at least a little different than the next. I am also using the word personal in a non-traditional context.
All The Best
Gary |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Hi Caz.
You are correct of course, about the 'personal' aspect. As you know I have always kept Kelly's murder separate from Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, (much to the annoyance of some, I know).
But, in the past couple of days I have given my reasons both fore & against it being JtR who was responsible. The similarities are close enough, in my opinion, to argue for JtR, but the differences are enough to create doubt.
In neither of the previous cases do I have this quandry, therefore I still keep her aside for further consideration.
regards, Jon |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hi Jon,
I respect your opinion and like to keep an open mind on Kelly myself, because you are right of course - there are differences with her.
But I always find myself with a question and a challenge for those who would argue more strongly than you or I for Jack's elimination from involvement in Kelly's death: a) Why are they trying to argue that the ripper didn't kill Kelly? b) If they seriously doubt his involvement for whatever reasons, give me a plausible scenario, preferably with a plausible suspect, that explains Kelly's murder.
Love,
Caz |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 6:20 pm: |
|
I believe he simply reached his peak with Kelly because he had a room to perform his dastardly deed to the highest degree. He was already showing signs of becoming worse and worse with each murder - totally deranged. Perhaps he didn't worry about being caught he was so obsessed with what he was doing and if someone had seen him they probably would've been too terrified at what he was doing to involve anyone at the time.
I'm satisfied she's a victim of the ripper.
But I'm not 100% sure that he only claimed 5...he could've claimed many more - including the torso murders - he threatened in his "letters" to decapitate victims. He was trying his hardest!
Someone can have more than one type of handwriting. The book "Diary of Jack the Ripper" shows a sample of handwriting by someone with multiple personality. Some people can change their handwriting as well deliberately!
I did wonder at first whether there might've been some strange cult going on in the East End...but the descriptions I've read all seem to point to just one fella - some of the details are different - but like someone has already pointed out witnesses are not always accurate. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 427
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 7:15 am: |
|
Hi Maryanne, Gary
I agree with your opinions regarding Mary Jane Kelly, Maryanne.
It is true that there are dissimilarities (like some here have pointed out) but I don't think they are significant enough to exclude her from the Ripper's victim list. I think Gary made an excellent point in stating that "If it were not for time constraints, her [Kate Eddowes'] killer could have butchered her in a fashion very similar to Mary Kelly. Yet no-one seriously insists that her killer knew her." The similarities are definetely there, although the signature is carried out to full extent in Kelly's case.
It is probably true, that people with multiple personalities can change their handwriting etc., Maryanne, but I don't think any of the Ripper letters were written by the killer (although I'm having doubts about the Lusk letter). The language is too ilitterate and this type of murderer would in my belief hardly want to indulge himself in the investigation like that. Since we also know that people actually were charged for concieving false letters, this also adds to the lack of credibility of their authencity -- although that naturally don't prove that they all were hoaxes automatically. But noone can dispute the fact that the killings were high value media stuff and therefore also invited all kinds of crack-pots to join the party (which is a common after-effect).
However, Gary, I'm having a hard time with the possibility of Stride being murdered by a gang of thugs like Emma Smith. There really aren't any medical similarities of that kind regarding to wounds, and if a gang attacked Stride, I think the incident would have been of a more noisy character and that they also would have been spotted more easily -- we don't have any witness accounts of a gang of ruffians raving alongside Berner Street at the time. (I assume that that maybe just was a hypothesis of yours, but nevertheless...).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 955
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:27 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I agree Liz wasn't murdered by a gang, but I think it's quite possible that Schwartz's man was some local thug who robbed prostitutes - hence Liz's reaction, and also Schwartz's and pipe man's decision to make themselves scarce.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 434
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi Robert
Indeed possible. That also corresponds quite well with how I interpret the Schwartz' man's behaviour -- in my view he's more of a ruffian and a brute than a serial killer (although I still tip the scale agianst Liz being a Ripper victim), and I believe that there were quite a lot of characters as such on the streets after dark. I'm not so sure that he is identical with Kidney either, as some have proposed, but that we will probably never know for sure.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 129
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Maryanne, I agree with you 100% about Kelly being a Ripper victim. If you take the previous murders (minus Stride) and look at the progress in each you see "steps" left by the killer showing an increased brutality with each new murder. Whether the murders start with Martha, or she is the inspiration for future murders, each one adds to the previous by going a step further in the mutilation.
Martha, stabbed to death with multiple abdominal / chest wounds. Polly, throat cut, abdominal mutilation instead of just stabbing her, he cuts her open but hides it under her dress. Annie, add to the others with her wounds visible. Kate, add to the previous that her organs were strewn about and her face attacked. Kelly, same as the rest except the killer kept going until there was nothing left. What is unsure about the killings is why the escalation with each new victim. It may have been the increased fear factor, may have been the killer's lust, may have been any number of reasons we are unaware of...
Shannon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 442
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Hi Shannon,
I totally agree. There is a clear pattern of progressing rage and need for fullfillment in each of the murders. Some disregard this "escalating" nature of the murders, but I have always pointed out its validity and significance, simply because I think it's there and also because I think it is a natural process; on each occasion you need to do more and to be bolder in order to get the satisfaction that the crime brings.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 132
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Glenn, exactly. It’s like any other addiction. At first a small amount is enough; but, as time goes by and you build up a tolerance to it and you need more; eventually you overdose. Not sure if that is what happened when he was allowed to fulfill his utmost fantasy with MJK, but it may help to explain why the killings stopped, or at least stopped for a time...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 443
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 7:12 am: |
|
Yep, Shannon. We may differ on a couple of other issues regarding the case, but we are completely in tune here. Couldn't have expressed it better myself.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Hi gents,
Without mentioning B------ if the killers intention was to express revenge on Kelly, he would have fullfilled his task, and there would be no need to go to that extreme ever again.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 971
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
Well, maybe you yourself see the crimes as being purely about Kelly, but I get the impression that Shannon and Leanne see the crimes as being about Joe's mother, whom he can never kill once and for all unless he actually encounters her on the streets of Whitechapel.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 451
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Sorry, Richard.
After the murder in Miller's Court I don't believe any killer would be able to stop on his own choice or go back to society and lead a normal life. That is impossible. For such a person there are only three outcomes: a) he totally loose his mind becomes locked up in an asylum; b) he kills himself; c) he continues to kill.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 5:59 pm: |
|
G'day,
ROBERT: To a psychopathic killer, a victim can represent anyone, even two people. As most serial killers have problems that started in their childhood, I believe that Joe had bad memories started by his mother, then he had the problem of controlling his girlfriend, (whom he didn't want to lose the same way he lost his mother)!
GLENN: Here's another choice for you to consider: d) He no longer has the need for the character of 'Jack the Ripper', so he eases or changes his MO to suit any situation, plus he doesn't have to kill so often.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 973
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
Well, I'm not too clued up on the profiling/psychology angle.But in the past you've asked me to imagine Barnett's "torment" when he was dumped by Kelly, and spoken of him walking the streets in torment and suchlike. That doesn't sound like a psychopath.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 454
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 6:33 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne
"To a psychopathic killer, a victim can represent anyone, even two people."
Possibly, but Jack the Ripper was most likely not a psychopath in the word's true sense.
Regarding the "another choice to consider":
I believe he could change his MO (as well as his signature), but not that he could "ease" them. A killer like this murders for satisfaction and because he haves to -- I think you overvalue the rational thinking of his part. But he could change his methods, that is correct. One of the reasons why I believe Kelly being a Ripper murder, is that the increase of policemen on the streets after the double event made it safer and more natural for him to choose a victim indoors.
Not to make you reveal anything from your book, Leanne, but does that mean that you believe Barnett continued to kill after the Miller's Court murder...?
Anyway, I don't believe it would be possible for a killer to go on to some further extent after a murder like that. It could happen, of course, but I find it not probable. That person would most likely be a wreck, and what would his next step be? How would he get his satisfaction next time?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 6:05 am: |
|
Perhaps he didn't stop but couldn't carry on with the extent that he did with Mary Kelly. If he stopped, he either died, was sent to an asylum or was imprisoned for some other crime or perhaps he just got bored with killing and that's why he got away with it! lol!
And serial killers do send letters to the police! To taunt them for a start! I don't think he would be illiterate, but perhaps the bad spelling was deliberate. I don't disregard the letters. I'm fascinated by them, although I do think a lot of them were rubbish.
Just think Jack could've been quite a poet and even an artist if the letters are anything to go by. He had to do something to fill his time in whilst he waited to kill again.
The problems of course was the fact there was so many postal deliveries and it was easy for the hoaxers and they did publish too many details about the murders and the letters.
So who knows? Perhaps the Dear Boss one(s) were for real after all? I find them very spooky.
And my book doesn't once mention James Maybrick and the diary. I noticed he used the term "ha ha" a lot throughout it. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Sorry, Glenn, but if you are going to tell us what is "impossible" or not, you better back it up with real-world evidence to support it.
We all know that the investigators in the late 19th century trying to solve the case assumed that either he was locked up in an asylum, killed himself, or continued to kill. I would hope that people could debate based upon knowledge made within the last century, not from the inexperienced assumptions of a police force that we already know couldn't catch the killer. It's like trying to debate particle physics and only using knowledge from before Einstein. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 463
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
Dan,
I am not basing any of my assumptions on the work performed by the police force of the 19th century. Where did you get that idea? These are all "theories" based on knowledge and the developments of today.
By the way, stating things like "I don't believe it would be possible" and "It could happen, of course, but I find it not probable" is NOT the same as saying something is "impossible"
I think you are a bit careless with words, Dan. Are you sure you're just not reading things that don't exists into my posts because they suit you?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 186
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:49 pm: |
|
When you consider Mary's mutilations there does seem to be an objective. Her face is obliterated, her genitals are obliterated and uterus removed, her breasts are removed, and her heart is removed and perhaps destroyed. What might this mean? What has been taken from her? Her attractiveness (face). Her sexuality, womanhood (genitals, uterus, and breasts). Her love or capacity to love (heart).
Or is this all random mutialtion? Could be.
Andy
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 466
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
I have no idea, but I would at least say that it is a part of a sexual act of signature and that his reasons for destroying her by disfigurement and mutilation rather has sexual implications than personal (and the same can go for at least Eddowes as well), although we may never know that for sure.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Catherine Ann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
I don't buy it that there were so many depraved murderers in one area! I even think the torso killer could've been the ripper. I wonder what name he preferred to go by? Perhaps he just liked messing around and employing different techniques on them. It's not impossible. I find this more acceptable to believe rather than thinking there were about three or four mad men out there who had the stomach for this stort of killing.
I really don't believe Barnett would've sliced Mary up in that fashion, that takes someone who knows what he's doing surely? And it couldn't be a copycat because the ripper hadn't done anything like that before.
I really think all this was just the work of one sicko out there, just progressing to more hideous mutilations as he perfected his technique and became bolder and bolder.
Having said that, as a child I believed Jack the Ripper was much worse. "Rumours" were that he cut up a baby inside one of the victims and that he used to trail the entrails all around the length of the room. I'm sure glad he wasn't that bad, but he was certainly bad enough.
Best wishes. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 768
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Catherine - so what happened in the years when there was no "Jack" - no murders?
Your argument amounts to - when Jack was about all other murders ceased. When he was gone they started again.
Logically, in the 1888 at least sme of the killings should have been by hands other than JtR.
Think on it.
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
