|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through November 30, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
A Bit of Whimsy -- If there was a Time Machine . . .:
Archive through November 30, 2000
Author: Diana
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 06:42 pm |        | | I would visit that yard in Hanbury Street. I would hide on the other side of the fence. I would poke a videocam which I brought with me from the 21st century through a knothole in the fence and record the murder for posterity. Then I would hop in the Time Machine go back 15 minutes and hide behind the shed. This time I would pop out and blast Jack with the pepper spray, thus saving Annie who would probably be mad at me because she lost a sale. |
Author: Grailfinder
Saturday, 25 November 2000 - 10:21 pm | | Hi Diana:
The trouble with your little plan, would be that if you were to return to 1888 and bump off our friend Jack, myself and all the other board members would not be able to play our funny little games of hunt the ripper!
Instead, we would have to play hunt the killers killer?, which, although I would find a thrilling game to play, other members might be a little peeved with! and decide to get themselves a time machine in order to go back to the scene of the crime 5 mins before you turned up and then wait in the shadows for your arrival in order to bump you off before you could bump off Jackie!
Of course, now that I have warned you of the possible outcome of your actions, you might want to play safe and send a friend of yours back to the garden 10 mins before you arrived so as to check the place out for you and so make it safe for your arrival!
However, as most of us are acting out some kind of Sherlock Holmes fantasy, we might have already thought of all the possibilities of the above scenario and decided to play safe as well, and send our own mates back 5 mins before we returned in order to cover our backs! now as you can imagine, the backyard of Hanbury St would be pretty crowded by this time and hardly the nice and quite setting that Jack liked to work in and would probably slope off elsewhere with Annie leaving all of us to fight it out among ourselves?
So! not only would you fail to stop poor Annie's death, you would also fail to put an end to Jack's little games.
There is however, a cool outcome to the above series of events? in that, 100 years later a new website would appear on the net for all us amateur sleuths to play with, that would try to solve the "Hanbury Street mystery" where the bodies of 50 unknown strangers, in weird cloths were found early one morning by a resident of the house on his way to work!
cheers |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 07:35 am | | | Pepper Spray doesn't "bump off". It only makes one very uncomfortable, and provides a temporary disabling effect which would render Jack arrestable. |
Author: Grailfinder
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 08:50 am | | I stand corrected!
However, the thought of facing up to the worlds most famous butcher armed with a spray! "rather you than me my dear" are you really that brave as to make this frenzied maniac feel "Uncomfortable"!
Also, (and I apologize for being a little anal here) The Hanbury St killing was only the second murder, (debatable!) and at this time the killer had no name, the rumor of a Leather Apron being found caused a stir I agree, but only later was the JtR tag given to him and should you succeed in saving Annie from her fate, then his body count would total one! hardly an event to cause the following 100 year search and industry that JtR has given the world eh?
So with no fame being given to our man, there would be no books, films, TV progs etc, and certainly no website about his exploits, which would mean you would never have heard of Jack and posted your idea of a time machine and we wouldn't be having this mad conversation?
I would suggest that we leave our Jack to his work on the first four, and then poke your vid-cam through the broken window of Mary Janes little hovel so we could find out,
(A) how many Jacks were in the room that night?
(B) just why did he light the fire, and what was destroyed in it?
(C) was it Mary Jane?
(D) was the door locked or barred with the table?
Although! I personally think you would have trouble in getting the cam through the hole in the glass as Hutch's peeping big head would get in the way!
over to you.. |
Author: Justin Rose
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 08:33 am | | | What if the Ripper was the one with the time machine and he really lived in something like 2088. He casualy goes back in time to Whitechapel 1888 to have his fun on the weekends. Who knows JAck could be one of are future grandkids |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 09:24 am | | Hi Justin..
I too have had this thought of a "future Jack" and came to the conclusion that our time traveling fiend was a Jill, rather than a Jack, and that her identity was none other than... Mary Jane Kelly!.. Dun, Dun, Dah.
This of course would explain the statement made by Mrs Caroline Maxwell and others that Mary Jane was seen in the Dorset St area after her time of death.
It is a well known fact that killers of the like of the Whitechaple fiend, often return to the scene of the crime to gloat and witness the horror they have caused with there actions and I suggest that this is precisely what Kelly had done.
It also explains why Mrs Maxwell stated that Kelly had thrown-up in the street, as all that spinning and tumbling through the "Time Tunnel" would no doubt make one feel a little tom/dick.
I would also add, that this scenario could also explain the mystery of the similarity in all the victims names?
All five of the Canonical victims had been known as either Mary Jane/Mary Ann, So possibly our future Jill was appalled by her own illness and knew she had not the strength to stop her blood-lust, or to commit suicide.
She therefore devised a plan to return to 1888, hunt down and Murder her Great,Great Grandma, and in doing so would painlessly cease to exist herself.
case solved eh?
p.s
By the way Justin, the above statement will answer the question that you haven't yet asked ("but will") over on the "Could Mary Jane Kelly have been the Ripper?" board.
Now if this is all starting to get a little confusing for you? please do not worry about it, as it will all become clear a little later on, or possably yesterday!
Ha Ha...
best regards
J.J.J.Kelly 27/11/2088 |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 02:24 pm | | | Wasn't there a film about Jack travelling to the modern day via a Time Machine , with HG Wells in hot pursuit ? |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 02:51 pm | | I like this kind of discussion, because it focuses people's minds on how they might solve the case within their own minds. Let's face it, the trail has gone cold after all these years, and no one is going to find the knife, the uteri, or a confessional statement at this point. Therefore the "what if" techniques would seem to be in order now. So, if we had an infinite number of monkeys banging out an infinite number of what if scenarios on an infinite number of PCs, we'd eventually have the solution.
David |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 04:41 pm | | Hi David:
In theory the quote about the infinite number of monkeys/typewriters experiment only works on paper, in reality the truth far different.
A few years ago the experiment was put to the test by a group of American professors.
The following is a true story;
A well known British pop group were, a few years ago, trying to decide on a name for the band and could not agree on each others choice of names, so the drummer came up with the idea of the Monkey/typewriter experiment as a solution, so after doing some research they found out that the Americans had indeed put the theory to the test and so decided, to settle the argument, that they would name the band with the results of the test, apparently they only came up with one pronouncable word, which is why we brits now have a very popular band with the unforgettable name of "Chumbawumba"
There last hit record was "I get knocked down, but I get up again" crap song, crap band, but a brilliant name eh?
Simon;
Yeh! I too remember seeing that film on TV years ago, staring Malcolm Mc'dowell as H,G,Wells, although I cant recall much else about it and I don't think it stuck to the true ripper story, although if memory serves me right, it ended with Jack falling off London Bridge (the one they moved to America) and drown, ala Druitt?
Whilst on the topic of TV;
channel 4, will be airing a program tonight 27/11/00, called "The Whitechapel Murders"
Modern forensic methods are applied to the riddle of Jack the Ripper.
Sorry but this is for UK viewers only
starts at 10.00pm,
pass it on! cheers |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 05:00 pm | | Reading this at 21:55...rushing to T.V. Thanks!!!
Steve S. |
Author: Justin Rose
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 08:46 am | | J.J.J Kelly,
I think you should write a book, fiction of course, everyone else has used the royal conspricy, thats all you see in fiction about Jack the Ripper.I didn't know that all the victims used the name Mary at one time or another. I only thought that Eddowes often went by Mary Ann Kelly. Its not imposible that it was a man that commited the murders, there no evidence at all to support that it 100% was a man. Think about the book deal if Micheal Dibdin could make Sherlock Holmes the Ripper how hard could it be to make Mary Kelly.
J.D. Rose |
Author: Justin Rose
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 08:50 am | | | I ment to put Its not impossible that it was a women that commited the murders |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 02:33 pm | | Hi Justin;
Glad to hear you enjoyed the little tale above and thank you for the suggestion that I should write a book.
As to your point about the murderer being female! although it isn't impossible, it is I think, unlikely.
Violent crimes such as those committed by Jack are, as history has shown us, the actions of the Male.
Women are more likely to poison or shoot there victim rather than have any physical contact with there victims, there are of course a few exceptions, Lizzie Borden springs to mind, who in 1892 was charged with hacking her parents to death with an axe, but if my memory serves me right she was acquitted. I also recall a woman from the early 1800s who murdered her employees, chopped them up and boiled them in a vat, and then sold there fat as dripping to the neighbours!. (I have not been able to eat a dripping sandwich since I read about this woman)
But these murders are the exception to the rule, and it is the male that is responsible for messy, bloody and violent crimes we see in the Whitechapel killings.
I do agree with you though, that the fiction section in our bookstores would benefit by a few more books based on JtR that steered clear of the Mason/Royal theories, and a Jill rather than a Jack has interesting possibilities.
"An interesting thought"
I recall a witness statement that stated, "I saw the Kelly woman standing in the archway to Millers Ct, she was with a man and an older looking woman or a man dressed as a woman"?
Now although I cant remember from which of the many books I have read about Jack the above statement came from, or for that matter if there was any truth in the statement, it has put a thought in my over imaginative mind!
Could the murders have been a joint effort, a man and wife killing team?
"hows this"
Jack and Jill went out on the kill
to hack and slash and slaughter.
But Jack broke down, and thankfully he drown,
By throwing himself in the water.
He,He |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 03:12 pm | | Hi all,
The reason no one has ever been able to pin the responsiblility for the Whitechapel murders on a single individual is very simple: there was a conspiracy. Ah! But not just any old conspiracy. During the summer of 1888, six people gathered round a table at their local boozer, the Fourpenny Knee-trembler, and devised a cunning plan. These men were: Joe Barnett, Monty Druitt, the Duke of Clarence, Frank Tumblety, Aaron (Al to his friends) Kosminski, and Mystic Lees. Now the last guy, Lees, was well known for his psychic abilities. He saw into the future, and realized that a century and more hence there would be a great mystery surrounding a series of murders. Having an impish sense of humour, Lees cooked up a jolly little plot: it was decided that each of the six would take to the streets during the coming autumn and murder one person. They would ensure that the MO was kind of similar in every case, thus convincing the police that all of the killings were the work of one man. This is exactly what they did, and this is why five of the above mentioned have all been unmasked at one time or another as Jack. Only Lees, who used his remarkable gifts to ensure absolutely no scrap of evidence remained to link him to Annie Chapman's murder (for which he was responsible), escaped suspicion. Eddy was a bit of a simpleton, not to mention hamfisted, and he made a pig's ear of Long Liz, and had to leg it without finishing the job. Druitt was of the opinion that carrying very sharp knives around was dangerous (his mother had repeatedly told him this), and thus when he came to butcher Martha T he found that his weapon simply wasn't up to the job, as would be expected; this is why she is often discounted as a victim. So there was some confusion as to how many victims 'Jack' had claimed, but Lees devious ploy worked well enough to convince the police and public that a single maniac was abroad. I believe that I'm the first (and probably last) person to see through this plan, and to at long last reveal the real truth behind what happened 112 years ago. As you can see, no time machine is necessary because here you have all the facts in plain black and white for the very first time.
I recently completed my long awaited book The Six Faces Of Jack. This will be published in the new year by HadderHeadcase, price £35.99 (plus VAT). You can place an advance order by sending money, and plenty of it to: Small Padded Room on the Fifth Floor, Just Next to the Laundry, Where I Work with Mr Pilchard the Octopus Man, Broadmoor, England. Please state if you would like your copy autographed in red crayon.
Thank you. |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 03:53 pm | | All,
The movie in which JtR is chased across time by H.G. Wells is called TIME AFTER TIME and stars David Warner as Dr. John Stephenson aka Jack the Ripper. The movie in which Jack drowns in the Thames is called BRIDGE ACROSS TIME and is about a cop (David Hasselhoff) chasing down the Ripper (Paul Rossilli) after London Bridge is rebuilt in Lake Havasu, Arizona.
There have already been theories about a "Jill the Ripper" proposed in the past, but there's always room for one more.
I am not generally a party pooper, but since I don't believe one can travel back in time (though travelling forward is possible), I can't play the game. An example from a non-scientific view: Let's say that you believed that if you went back in time and killed Jimmy Carter the world would be a better place. It'd be futile and a waste of time for you to try given that the past has already happened, Carter was never assassinated, and, therefore, your attempt must have failed.
Graham,
I was all for it 'til I saw the price! Hligosh! 36 quid!
J
If you'd like to read a different explanation of what the Whitechapel murders were all about, check out JACK/KNIFE at this link:
http://www.casebook.org/diversions/fiction.jackknife.html
I am, Sir, your Humble Servant,
Jack |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 04:22 pm | | | Well, since it's you, your Ripship, what say we call it three tiddlywinks, four bottle tops and a packet of ping pong balls? And for that I'll even throw in the plate off which Kosminski ate half of Kate Eddowes' kidne (100% genuine and fully authenticated by the Little Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe). Can't say fairer than that now, can I? |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 05:00 pm | | A warning to all, re above item;
Graham states; (And for that I'll even throw in the plate off which Kosminski ate half of Kate Eddowes' kidne)
This plate is surly a forgery?
It has been well recorded that Kosminski would only eat scraps of bread that he found in the gutter, and I believe that he was a strict vegetarian, so to suggest the plates provenance is proven is I think a little foolhardy? and anyway the Little Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe was a well known whore, with so many kids that she didn't know what to do.
So had she at one time had possession of such an antique item, surly she would have sold it and moved herself and her brats into a high rise boot? |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 05:04 pm | | | Why do I get the feeling the last message should have been sent by someone called 'cut-me-own-throat'? (very appropriate,really) |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 05:24 pm | | For the attention of Mr Simon Owen;
why then, if this is the case, did she not just throw away the old bonnet? |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 05:27 pm | | I think you must be referring to the other Kosminski. This is Big Al Kosminski, well known in the East End for his voracious appetite for women's kidneys.
I am quite frankly shocked that anyone could suggest that the Little Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe was a woman of loose morals. Far from it. She was in fact a staunch Catholic who in her younger days obtained a degree (with honours) in platterology, the highly specialized science of deducing the psychological characteristics of a person just by studying the remains they leave on their plate. Said plate came into her possession when she worked as a housekeeper for the Kosminski family (who where wealthy, as opposed to the other Kosminskis, who weren't). Just about to do the washing up, so she was, when she stared with horror at Big Al's plate: 'My Lord,' said she, 'Big Al's the Ripper!' Of course, we know the truth - that he was only ONE of six rippers.
As you can see, the plate is indeed genuine, Big Al did indeed devour half of Kate's kidne from it, and the Little Old etc was a paragon of virtue, a workaholic, and an expert in her field. |
Author: Justin Rose
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 08:39 am | | I still just think that theres no real evidence that proves it was a man other then statistics, I agrre it was probably a man but I just tend to keep an open mind. I really think the Ripper hated women, he could have been Homosexual although homosexuals tend to kill men I think? But notice the mutilations to the vaginal area, its present at every murder(except Liz, but Eddowes was killed the same night to feed his hunger for mutilation.) so I would guess he was a man but we can't guess everything.
J.D. |
Author: Justin Rose
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 08:56 am | | | Dude, I updated my profile have a look for fun. |
Author: Grailfinder
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 10:33 am | | Justin;
er! "DUDE"?
I haven't heard anyone use this term for years, it was assigned to "room 101" forty years ago, along with Fab,Groovie, Rad, etc, and is about as cool as trainspotting! but then your profile states that you are a Guns & Roses fan, so that explains a lot!
I did take a look at your profile as you asked, and although I searched and searched for the "Fun" you mentioned, I'm afraid the item in question proved to be as elusive as old JtR himself.
As to your other points about mutilations etc, might I just point out that this board was started by Diana (see top of page) as a bit of "FUN" and any serious questions should be posted on the relevant boards and not here, where it is only appropriate to talk "total bollocks"
See the postings above for ref: particularly those made by Mr Graham Sheehan, who seems to have grasped the idea.
P.S
Please note, this reply to you should not be taken seriously and is not an attack on your personal sense of humor, your profile, particularly the bleached blond hair and music taste tells us all that you are a really Fun, way out there sort of Guy.
cheers |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 10:54 am | | Grailfinder,
I am utterly outraged by your suggestion that my very sensible and practical theory regarding the six Jacks and the Little Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe could in any way be described as 'total bollocks'. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may have one foot planted firmly in the 'Five Rippers Named Mo' camp, and could even be the notorious author of The Ripper Quintet and the Three Blind Mice: It's The Real Truth This Time, Honest Guv himself. It is a provable fact that one of the mice was called Edward, and was in any case deaf and had a limp. |
Author: Grailfinder
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 12:17 pm | | My dear friend;
I was sorry to hear that my comments had "outraged" you, it was not my intention to dismiss your theory as unsound, but was merely trying to point out to Justin that sensibility and logic are the last thing that this board needs, the casebook website has far to many characters of the like of Begg, Fido etc, spouting off this or that type of nonsense.
There continued use of sound/sane and well researched reasoning has, as we all know, failed for more than 100 years to put a name to the fiend of our debates, and it has always been my view that for all there good intentions, all they have done with there "so called" sensibility, is to add yet more names to the list of suspects and caused nothing but confusion in the search for JtR.
I would add though, with ref; to your statement about Mr Edward Mouse, that should you care to read the memoirs of Assistant Commissioner Hans,C,Anderson, he clearly states that when the Mouse was taken to the seaside Home for identification, it was noted that he was still in full possession of his tale? so could not possibly have been one of the three mice in question. Further more, PC Grimm in his "Darker side to my life", found evidence that at the time of the Whitechapel murders, Edward Mouse was living on a staircase somewhere in Amsterdam?
I rest my case. |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 02:19 pm | | My dear chap,
Yes, I'd go along with your sentiments regarding the distinct lack of outrageous theories and barking mad suggestions from many Casebook contributors. Begg, Fido and Evans, to name but three, all display the rather shocking habit of carrying out meticulous research and sticking rigidly to the known facts. I haven't seen any of them mention the Three Blind Mice, space aliens or an escaped wild animal once. What we need is some really unlikely suspects, poorly researched 'evidence' (and preferably some just made up on spot), and maybe another 15 or 20 victms too, just to make things a little more interesting.
With this is mind, I can now reveal for the first time ever the true purpose behind Sir Bob's trip to the Seaside Home: he was in fact the Ripper! Oh yes. Moreover, Levy and Lawende were his accomplices! Indeed, it's true. This evil trio had spent some considerable time rounding up various witnesses who might be able to unmask them. John Netley ferried these poor buggers two at a time down to Brighton, and once all 57 of them were rounded up, Anderson and his cohorts killed the lot of 'em and buried 'em on the beach. Afterwards, they all had a bit of paddle in the sea, built a few sandcastles, and then returned to London as if a mere witness identification had taken place, nothing more. Secret undercover agent Kosminski was on their trail, but just as he had gathered the evidence necessary to secure a conviction against Anderson & co, they turned the tables on him, got Dr Pedachenko to certify Kos insane, and had him safely put away in an asylum. So, when Anderson stated that the identity of Jack was a fact, he knew it was because he was he (if you see what I mean). |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 02:52 pm | | | This has lost me now , what was that about a bonnet ? |
Author: Grailfinder
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 03:56 pm | | Sorry Simon;
This just goes to show that Time Traveling can be a confusing pastime! and it was a response to a question that you wont be asking until 3/6/2004,
so perhaps it would be best if we leave the subject closed until then?
"nice to see your paying attention though!"
Graham;
I have just had an e-mail from the Dept of silliness, and they have ordered me not to respond to your ridiculous post in case other board members should take your words to be truthful, I have written back to them and assured them that your medication should be kicking in just about now, so things should return to some semblance of reality quite soon, however until such, I would just like to say; "Dwibble"
Hope this clears thing up a little.
Yours, as always Montezuma |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 05:02 pm | | Monty,
Yes, the old meds are kicking in nicely just now. Haven't given jolly Jack or his funny little games one thought for the past seventeen minutes. Just time to take my luminous pink spoon muffin for a quick chortle round the block, then I'll get Mrs Periwinkle to cluck me down safe and sound in my flower bed. Ahoy, sour dreams of egg fried rice!
Evening all. |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 06:03 pm | | | I'm sure the truth will be revealed in the infamous 'black volume' of Sir Harry Flashman's memoirs....suffice to say Gordon did not die at Khartoum his religious fervour was turned to madness by years of Dervish captivity. Helped to escape by Lord Greystoke, he returned to England,where he launched a new crusade....a much darker one!!!!!! |
Author: Grailfinder
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 07:08 pm | | Oh no! not the the infamous 'black volume' again.
This so called diary/scribblings has been given far to much coverage already and the only person who still has any faith in its provenance is the poor disillusioned bitch that published it.
It has, I believe been proven beyond any doubt, that its author was a Mr M.Parrot, an alcoholic nutcase from Blackpool who wrote it in an attempt to impress his wife with his knowledge of Sir Harry Flashman, and his exploits in the far east.
Unfortunately his missus ran off with one of the books researchers and she is now declaring herself to be a distant relative of Tarzan, who was she claims, the real Author of this infamous book.
The book claims that after Lord Greystoke returned to Britain, his lifelong friend "and fellow nutcase" Gordon, had an affair with cheater his pet ape, but when Gordon tried to bring an end to the affair because he had met and fallen in love with Mary Kelly, the jilted ape prowled the streets of London in search of his rival in romance and killed the five whores, the rest as they say, is History.
"or possibly, Her story"
I thank you. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 07:36 pm | | Everybody seems to be on the wacky baccy or funny mushrooms! It's you ,in it Gray'? spreading this flipancy!If you have been on something, send us some,-- and while your at it send Jon some, or he'll feel as left out as me!
Rick |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 09:14 pm | | | As the originator of this thread, I would like to suggest a new project. Every time a new thread is started someone ought to give it a score based on how many messages it takes to completely change the subject. In this case 10! |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 02:55 am | | Hi all,
Rick's mention of mind altering substances could, I feel certain, point to a definite solution. Is it not obvious? Everyone involved in the Ripper case was experimenting with LSD, and everything was one big mass hallucination. No one was murdered, and there was thus no investigation. The reason Jack seemed able to 'just disappear into thin air' is because he did - and in fact he was only thin air to start with.
Diana, please accept my apologies as one of those who flew off at an insane tangent and forgot about the time machine. If I had access to such a device, I'd spin back to 9 November 1888, hide outside MJK's room until I saw the Ripper emerge and could thus idenify him, then go back a little further and kill him before he had a chance to start playing his funny little games. Quite what effect this would have on the space time continuum and general way of the world I really don't know, but it'd certainly be interesting to find out.
Graham |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 03:59 am | | But Diana, every post here transports us back in some small way.
I had all but forgotten about Edward Mouse - where on the stair? Right there! A little mouse with clogs on, well I declare, going clip-clippety-clop on the stair.
Edward's deafness and limp make perfect sense now. Trying to dance on the stairs wearing anything vaguely clog-like - Dr.Scholls sandals will do the trick just as well - while listening to Max Bygraves (referred to by those who know the 1960s songster as 'Snotty Wally' - absolutely true) will give the most robust rodent a pronounced limp - pronounced L I M P - in one shake of a rat's tail, and render the poor thing's lugholes useless at the same time. Years later, Edward can only appreciate Guns n Roses turned up VERY loud, while trying to get his limpness sorted, and his heinous crimes continue, as the nightly neighbours' cries of "Oh murder" can be heard by everyone for miles around, except, apparently, poor deaf limp Eddie.
Here endeth this morning's tale of total bollocks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Grailfinder
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 07:03 am | | Hi Diana;
Sorry for being involved in the Hi-jacking of your thread, but you did title it, "A Bit of Whimsy " these boards, as Caz noted above, do tend to have a life of their own and tend to skip off down side streets.
So in an attempt to get back on track, I propose the following use for our Time Machine;
I wonder if any other members have ever had any thoughts regarding Mr Charles Cross?
Cross, is the first person to step onto the Ripper stage, it was he that found the first victim Polly Nichols, he claimed to have been on his way to work when he spotted what he thought to be a tarpaulin, but on further investigation realized it was a body!
Now until he was joined by a Mr Robert Paul, he was totally alone in Bucks Row.
It was thought by the pair of them that she was still breathing, so her attack must have occurred shortly before their arrival. Leaving the body, they continued on their way to work with the intention of reporting the crime to the first bobby they met.
At 4:15 they met Constable 55H James Mizen in Hanbury St and told him the details of there find.
Now Hanbury St, as we all know was the scene of the second murder. When DR George Bagster Phillips examined the body of Annie Chapman at 6:30, he stated that the woman had been dead approx 2 hours, ie, sometime between 4:00 and 4:30.
My point being, if Charles Cross was telling the truth about finding Polly whilst on his way to work, a journey that I presume took him to the same locations at the same time every day, and then came across the Bobby in Hanbury St at 4:15, then we can place this man at the scene of both crimes at the correct times that the crimes were committed.
So with the aid of our Time Machine, I would pop back to the dates in question, and follow this man on his way to work, timing his journey and noting its path. If his walk to work was to put him in the vicinity of one of the 3 remaining crime scenes then I feel Mr Cross should be added to the growing list of suspects.
any thoughts? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 07:43 am | | And for my next trick, I will now disappear up my own----BUM-BUM
THANK YOU |
Author: Grailfinder
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 07:55 am | | Graham;
My dear friend,
I feel I must apologize for the above sensible theory that I have posted, It is, as I am sure you will agree, a complete waste of energy and brain power to pose such a sensible thought as this, and can only lead to further normality, which, I am also sure you will agree, is a totally unnecessary pastime.
My only excuse is that I have not had a Toke for a few days now as my stash-pot has run dry, and until this can be remedied I fear further sane postings will occur.
Perhaps dear friend, you could help me out in this matter? and send us some of yours? indeed! it would benefit all members to have a blast on some of Gray,s Toke!
Ta son.
p.s
Hows Aunt MaryJayne? I hear she's been having trouble with her Bush! and say hello to wee Jai, the rent boy for me. |
Author: Justin Rose
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 08:55 am | | I like the word dude.And Guns and Roses Rule!!!!
Are we all in agreement. Maybe Axel Rose was the Ripper and one night he got really mad and went back in time, maybe we aren't really having this chat but we will be so it seems we are. I don't undersdtand all this time travel stuff. |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 10:12 am | | Hi All,
I have compressed a fair sized bag of Indoe into a zip file and posted it in the Good Drugs (Man) section. My advice to Grail and others given to expounding sensible theories is to skin yourselves up a fat blunt, kick back, chill out, let the herb to its work and then throw about some utterly presposterous suggestions as to the identity of Jack Ripsmith, dudes.
Like Justin, I've also considered the possibility that Axl Rose might be Jack. Having investigated the matter thoroughly, however, I would be more inclined to favour Slash. Note the way he always has a bottle of JACK Daniels somewhere about his person. This could well be a cry for help, as in: 'I'm widely acknowledged as a great axe man, I wear a top hat on occasion, and wherever I go, Jack is always with me. Can't you see the clues I'm giving you dudes? I'm Jack! It's me!'
Mind you, please bear in mind that Axl once sang: 'Take me down to the paradise city, where the grass is green and the girls are pretty.' As any psychologist will tell you, what he really meant by this was: 'I've a got down on whores and won't quit ripping them until I do get buckled.'
Nor would I rule out former G'nR guitarist Izzy Stradlin. As most of you will be aware, Stradlin is the name the remote Namibian Lemititnini tribe give to Jack the Ripper. Thus, Mr Stradlin seems to be using his name to say: 'Is he Jack the Ripper?' This could mean either himself, displaying the kind of self-referred-to-as-third-party ploy often exhibited by the insane, or one of the other band members, so things get a bit tricky here.
On balance, I'd say Slash was the actual killer, and Rose & Stradlin were his accomplices. 'She's got eyes of the bluest skies.' Indeed she has - but how could they possibly have known this unless there were all to some degree guilty of committing the Whitechapel murders? It is also a well known fact that Edward Mouse buys his clogs from the same shop that Axl gets his lycra Stars and Stripes cycle shorts - how much more evidence does anyone need?
Just remember to always take the guys' advice and use your illusion.
Peas, man.
And carrots. |
|
|
|
|
