|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 January 10, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
The map view of the Murders:
Archive through January 10, 2001
Author: Justin Rose
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 09:08 am |        | Theres one thing I have noticed about the placement of the murders I read in Jack the Ripper and the Women of Whitechapel. If you take the first four murders Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes and mark them all on a map of whitchapel. Draw a line from each one in the order that they happened then draw a line from the 2nd to the 4th. You get an almost perfect parallelogram. Which just so happends to be a mason simble. I don't think it was the masons but it just seems to be there for me. Some one set out to place these bodys in these spots for a reason. Kelly was either a copy cat killing or a killing by the Ripper after he found some fatel flaw in his plan, he may hava thought that Eddowes was Kelly. But I'm just in high school you guys are the pros and are probably much older then me.
J.D. |
Author: Grailfinder
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 10:17 am | | Hi Justin;
The pattern you talk of has been mentioned a few times over the years, I have also looked into this, and for any readers without access to a map I have included an image in this post. (see below)
You may like to ponder over a few of my thoughts on this pattern.
Apart from the clearly Masonic aspects of the double triangle, it also has Jewish links! placed one on top of the other they form the star of David.
Also, starting from the far right ie; Bucks Row, should you draw a diagonal line through the center of the design, on through Mitre sq you end up at Westminster, the seat of Parliament, now! Bucks Row can be pronounced in two ways, Row as in, "a row of seats", or Row as in "an argument". Here in the UK the Royal residence is called Buckingham Palace, or as most people say Buck House, so the term Bucks Row could be read as "the Royal Argument" and as this design points directly towards Westminster and its politicians, (mostly, all them masons) could there be a link? Were the Masons getting to powerful back in 1888? and could there have been a plot to commit a series of crimes with the finger of suspicion pointed directly at the craft?
We can of course make many speculative thoughts about this, but it is I think, all circumstantial.
You may also wish to think about this; if you were to measure the distance between these lines, the Triangles formed are exact to within a few inch's, if you consider the real distance (in miles) to this series of points, it is a remarkable coincidence that they form so an exact pattern.
cheers.
P,S
Your comment about us all being pros? not true, we are all amateurs and your thoughts, regardless of your age are most welcome and just as valid as anyones, stand proud my boy, and scream from the rooftops your thoughts.
 |
Author: Justin Rose
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 08:43 am | | It just seems to real to be a coincadence, whoever the murder was they planned this out. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a real clue that has been overlooked by many. Out of all the Ripper books I have seen it took a fiction story to point this out to me. Even if the one on the left is a little out of proportion its just looks to good on paper. Stephen knight tried to say that its an arrow pointing toward the Tower of London I don't really see that as much as I see the Parrallelogram.
p.s. I appreciate it Grailfinder, thanks for looking at me as an equal.
J.D. |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 09:50 am | | Hi again Justin;
You say "Stephen knight tried to say that its an arrow pointing toward the Tower of London"
Although I wouldn't go as far as to single out one particular building in Westminster, I think Knight and a few other Authors, have linked the "Arrow" as to pointing at Parliament in general.
The Arrow symbol has been used by the British Government for hundreds of years as a sign of "Government Property".
It can be found carved on everything from Public buildings to Royal Palaces, on official documents and even on Prisoners clothing, You must have seen old films or pictures of escaping prisoners with their uniforms covered in arrows?.
Although this type of uniform is no longer used, the arrow is still to be seen on the labels and tags sewn into their shirts, jumpers etc.
Now if we surmise that Kate Eddowes was mistakenly killed in place of Kelly, then Millers Ct does not become part of the design, and what we are left with is the Arrow that can be seen in the picture below.
As to whether or not these designs have anything to do with the murders can only be speculative, and they are just a few of the many strange twists that crop up in the JtR legend.
"perhaps it is precisely these and other quirks, that keeps all us Ripperphiles interested in the events of 1888.
Cheers,
P.S
Equality my friend, is our only hope of salvation, regardless of race, religion, sex or age. |
Author: Grailfinder
Saturday, 02 December 2000 - 05:56 pm | | Hi again Justin;
You say "Stephen knight tried to say that its an arrow pointing toward the Tower of London"
Although I wouldn't go as far as to single out one particular building in Westminster, I think Knight and a few other Authors, have linked the "Arrow" as to pointing at Parliament in general.
The Arrow symbol has been used by the British Government for hundreds of years as a sign of "Government Property".
It can be found carved on everything from Public buildings to Royal Palaces, on official documents and even on Prisoners clothing, You must have seen old films or pictures of escaping prisoners with their uniforms covered in arrows?.
Although this type of uniform is no longer used, the arrow is still to be seen on the labels and tags sewn into their shirts, jumpers etc.
Now if we surmise that Kate Eddowes was mistakenly killed in place of Kelly, then Millers Ct does not become part of the design, and what we are left with is the Arrow that can be seen in the picture below.
As to whether or not these designs have anything to do with the murders can only be speculative, and they are just a few of the many strange twists that crop up in the JtR legend.
"perhaps it is precisely these and other quirks, that keeps all us Ripperphiles interested in the events of 1888.
Cheers,
P.S
Equality my friend, is our only hope of salvation, regardless of race, religion, sex or age. |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 11:34 am | | Hi again Justin;
I'm sorry about the the double posting above, but I made a cock up with the first picture and Berner St and Mitre Sq (C/D) are in the wrong places.
I have redone the Artwork, and the correct version is the second post.
I have asked Stephen to delete post1, so please use post2 as ref
cheers
P.S
I suppose this post will need to be removed as well, when post1 gets removed? |
Author: Justin Rose
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 09:11 am | | | No big deal dude we all make mistakes. I picked up the New Jack the Ripper Companion its pretty good. I haven't really started to read it yet I have just skimmed it Sunday night. Its the first account that prints almost all the papers on the Whitechapel murders. Also notice about the parallelogram that if Kellys murder had take place a few blocks over from Chapmans instead of Millers court a third triangle could be created. |
Author: Tim Wolfe
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 01:15 pm | | To a see an excellent map of the pattern formed by the murder sites go to the following website:
http://serial-killers.20m.com/index.html
On the left hand side, click on "Jack the Ripper's Occult Plan" to view the map of the murder sites and the pattern they form. The map can be purchased. Then go to the section called "Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals" to learn more about the suspect, Robert D'Onston Stephenson, alias Dr. Roslyn D'Onston.
The map shows that the first four murder sites form an almost perfect cross. If you use the intersecting point of the cross as the center of a circle, the draw an arc of the circle to connect the murder sites of Nichols and Eddowes, you find that the Kelly murder site lies on the arc.
I know Mr. Edwards and have assisted him in his work. He started researching the murders in 1993 and is the first person to accurately measure the distances between the murder sites. He spent years surveying Whitechapel. He took compass readings and determined that the first four murder sites are at the four points of the compass. He has just finished a book about his meticulous research which will be published soon.
Many people think the cross pattern is just a coincidence. Common sense should tell anyone that if five dots are placed on a piece of paper at random the chances that any four of them would form a perfect cross is extremely slim. Add to this the fact that the Kelly site lies on an arc formed by two other sites and the chances get even slimmer. This pattern had to planned. D'Onston himself was the first to point out the cross in his article of Dec. 1, 1888 in the Pall-Mall Gazette. This alone is an extremely strong point in favor of D'Onston being the Ripper. |
Author: Tim Wolfe
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 02:24 pm | | To further my point, I have Mr. Edward's permission to disclose/discuss the following.
Edward's made the following discoveries. From victim 1 to victim 2 it is 930 yards. From victim 2 to victim 4 it is 930 yards. From victim 3 to victim 4 it is 950 yards. From victim 3 to victim 5 it is also 950 yards. From a center point at the main junction to victims 3, 4 and 5 it is 500 yards. All measurements are accurate to the meter.
From this center point, all side roads in which a murder was committed can be reached by walking in a straight line. When one considers that we are talking about a built up area, common sense dictates that that it was all done by design, and not by accident. Note the layout of all sites from the center point, they are laid out in the same manner.
To walk from the center point to victim 4 took Ivor Edwards 4 minutes, 36 seconds, point 04 of a second. From the center point to victim 3 it took him 5 minutes, 10 seconds, point 40 of a second. From the center point to site five, it took him 5 minutes, 6 seconds, point 04 of a second. From the center point to the site of 29 Hanbury Street, it took Ivor 7 minutes, 41 seconds, point 82 of a second.
Ivor Edwards has obtained confirmation by world reknown experts in their field that the information he has proves without doubt that the murders were planned well in advance on an O/S map of Whitechapel. One does not need to be an academic to realize the implications of the above facts. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 05:03 pm | | Tim,
Firstly, could you please enlighten us by putting names to the victims, rather than just numbers. Are you referring to the five Canonical victims?
Secondly, how were these yardages measured? By the distance along the pavements? As the crow flies? Incidentally the distance between Berner Street and Mitre Square was measured at the time and the published value is considerably different to the 950-odd yards you give.
The time taken to walk from site to site will vary considerably according to the day of the week and the time of day. The traffic on the main roads which must be traversed can be horrendous.
Theories like this generally involve a large degree of making the evidence fit, or plain wishful thinking.
Regards, V. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 06:28 pm | | | I like your idea Tim because it concurs with my view that the victim's bodies were placed in the locations they were found in ( with the exception of Stride and maybe of Kelly also ) rather than being killed on the spot. But - you must provide evidence that this is so , perhaps even drawing measurements on a scale map to prove your case. This would add weight that the murder sites are cardinal points of a shape , whether it be a cross , cross in a circle or arrow. |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 01:47 am | | Hello Mr. Wolfe,
I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to ask you a few questions about the information you provided to Jack's readership in your e-mail of Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 02:24 pm. Are you his \i[official} spokesperson? If you are, would
Mr. Edwards object to e-mailing Mr. Ryder with an acknowledgement of your authorization? Also, can you supply us with your bona fides so that we may evaluate your credibility? What, if any, is your connection to Mr. Edwards and his theory?
The technical portion of your statement makes a few assumptions that need clarification, e.g. you offer the rhetorical observation that, "all side roads in which a murder was committed can be reached by walking in a straight line"; can you explain why Mr. Edwards finds this unusual; most side roads are accessible by walking in a straight line at some point or another. How do the dimensions between the murder sites generate your conclusion that "common sense dictates that that it was all done by design, and not by accident"? You are appealing to the reader's imagination to supply the evidence to support this segment of your hypothesis; you haven't offered any compelling evidence to explain why your pattern is accurate or why it should be accepted in lieu of the others.
And finally, can you please name the "world reknown experts in their field" that are lending their reputations to Mr. Edwards whizbang, so that we may calculate the value of their testimony?
Thank you for your time |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 05:38 am | | Evening All
Although I find Tim’s enthusiasm for Ivor Edward’s theory laudable, I must echo the questions raised by Joseph, Viper, and others.
Numerous ‘world renowned experts in their fields’ have pondered these crimes since 1888, and all manner of patterns have been discerned. In that time, I would venture, not one single ‘fact’ has been ‘proved without doubt.’
Given that the geography and traffic traversed by Mr. Edwards is certainly not the same as that prevailing in 1888, what ‘facts,’ rather than individual interpretation, can be presented to suggest that Mr. Edward’s personal theory should be given greater weight than any other?
One final minor point, D’Onston’s Pall Mall Gazette article of 1 Dec 1888 was not the first to perceive a ‘cross’ pattern to Whitechapel murders, as this extract from an ‘Observer’ in the Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct. 1888, confirms:
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE DAILY TELEGRAPH."
SIR - In examining the chart representing the locality of the Whitechapel murders, published in your issue of to-day, it is curious to observe that lines drawn through the spots where the murders were committed assume the exact form of a dagger, the hilt and blade of which pass through the scenes of the sixth, second, first, and third murders, the extremities of the guard making the fourth and fifth. Further, the spot where the portion of the apron belonging to the victim of the Mitre-square tragedy was picked up lies in the imaginary line which forms the hilt of the dagger. Can this possibly afford a clue to the position of the next atrocity? - I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
OBSERVER.
London, Oct. 2.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 08:31 am | | | Whether we want to believe these theories or not we are once again confronted with the fact that these killings happened within a very small area. The center point may be instructive in that it may approximate the spot where Jack was used to picking up his victims. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 08:36 am | | | Appropos of my last thought, can we coordinate the center point with the last known sighting of each victim and where she was headed? |
Author: Tim Wolfe
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 02:34 pm | | The following posting is per a request from Ivor Edwards, and is being posted by me as Ivor has been unable to log-on to the Casebook. Please note the beginning and ending quotation marks.
Ivor has seen and is unable to directly respond to the VIPER’S recent posting.
“The 5 victims referred to are numbered in the order they were killed. 1. Nichols. 2.Chapman. 3. Stride. 4. Eddowes. 5. Kelly. Measurements I have given were taken as the crow flies on ORDINANCE SURVEY MAPS scale 1/2500 circa 1880, 1890, etc. Measurements were also taken in the field from victim to victim on the routes shown on my map marked in yellow. I am not talking about measurements from Berner Street to Mitre Square or any other street to street for that matter. I am referring to victim to victim only OK. No one has ever measured the distances from victim to victim. If they did they never made the findings public or they got the measurements wrong. Also, for your information the time taken to walk from site to site did not vary considerably when I walked them. In fact when I walked from the center to Dorset Street on two separate occasions one second was all I was off by.”
As a final note, I am neither a shill nor a spokesman, compensated or otherwise, for Ivor, merely one who is familiar with his work on the matter and comfortable with it. |
Author: Davidoz
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 03:38 pm | | | If I might be permitted to say: this is one of the finest examples of preparatory investigation procedure I have seen in 35 years of criminal investigations. I am sure that all on the Casebook offer our thanks to Mr Ivor Edwards for his diligence and precision. |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 05:06 pm | | Thanks for clarifying some of the methods used, Tim. Incidentally, the distances between Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, and between Mitre Square and Goulston Street were measured (by the streets) to ascertain the respective walking times. They were reckoned to be 1,144 yards and about 1,600 feet respectively.
Regards, V. |
Author: Davidoz
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 05:36 pm | | | What is your source reference for the calculations, Viper? |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:22 pm | | The evidence of Frederick William Foster at the Eddowes inquest provides the Berner Street to Mitre Square figure (actually stated as Mitre Street). It can be seen on page 201 of The Ultimate JTR Source Book. The Mitre Square to Goulston St. figure appeared in The Times on 2nd October, exact source unclear. That one is available at the Casebook, www.casebook.org/press_reports/times_[london]/lt881002.html
Regards, V. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 10:53 pm | | If Elizabeth Stride was not a Ripper victim, and in all likelihood she was not, doesn't this throw a huge monkey wrench into this absurd theory?
Wolf. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 11:34 pm | | Wolf--True. But if you thrown in Coles, Tabram, and McKenzie, the pattern(?) forms the rough outline of 'question mark' (Which, incidently, is the same shape as a monkey wrench). Hmm.
Regards,
RJP |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 12:53 am | | Hello Mr. Wolfe,
You have left the majority of my questions unanswered. As you can see, not everyone here is as quick to praise Mr. Edwards or yourself as your lone apostle apparently is, but neither are we quick to kill the messenger either.
If you truly desire serious consideration for Mr. Edwards thesis, might I suggest establishing a degree of credibility and proceed from there; other wise this website will soon be overrun by bulletproof messengers who either refuse to answer reasonable questions, or address them with the clarity of Professor Corey. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 11:08 am | | R.J. Hmm.
Wolf. |
Author: Davidoz
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 07:51 pm | | RJ Palmer,
Who brought the Wolf into the room?This terrible conjunction of omens took place in the autumn of 1888...with the arrival of the new moon cycle.
Did you not read The Pall Mall Gazette, 18th Sept.,1888?
"Escape of Wolf"
Berserker, by name and nature. Lord knows what harm it inflicted on some innocent lass. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 08:17 pm | | I have been unable until now to get on to this board (or any other ) so I asked Mr Tim Wolf and Mr Mike Anstead to post certain information on my behalf.Then I learnt that a certain individual named Joseph a self appointed inquisitor seemed to have a problem with this. He in fact questioned their authorization. This post is to confirm that the aboved named had my
authorization to post information on my behalf.
All posts in answer to mine will be given a reply at my leisure.You Joseph will be the first I reply to.Ivor Edwards. |
Author: Davidoz
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 08:24 pm | | Joseph,
Teacher's pet, now. There seems to be something in the air tonight. Is that a howl I hear...? This could be the Night of the Tearings, Joseph. |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 09:10 pm | | | Bring it on |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 05:43 am | | Rather than being an "inquisitor" I see that Joseph has asked precisely the questions that need to be asked in his usual intelligent and articulate manner. I am increasingly irritated by the growing amount of mystical claptrap on these boards and don't think we should be insulted for questioning and asking for proof rather than accepting whatever "revelation" is being peddled at the moment.
On the other hand, this discussion has provoked Davidoz into his first comprehensible post. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:07 am | | Hi Rotter,
I agree with you. I can't imagine why anyone who thinks they have a good case would be less than delighted to answer all reasonable questions put to them here. Continuing to avoid or discourage such questions with attempts to make things uncomfortable for the questioner (not a cat in hell's chance with Joseph) will tell us all we really need to know. So I say let's wait and see how Ivor responds to Joseph's questions.
Hi Davidoz,
I try not to mock those I don't (yet) understand, preferring to mock myself for my lack of vision. (Some people take this for gullibility). I don't know about anybody else, but I've been mocking myself silly over the past couple of weeks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:17 am | | Good girl Caz,
I'm making my break TONIGHT. My Dr. Miriam has suspected I've been accessing these Boards for some time now.
Joe! Are you with me, mate. Outside the wall with that ladder,o.k. GLASS ON WALL!!!
I got the key you sent in the cake. FREE AT LAST! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:24 am | | It's no good Davidoz, I'm just not bright enough for all this. You may as well be talking to me in Serbo-Croat.
Either it's another joke, or you are a cad and a bounder for using someone else's computer without their permission. If it's the former, your jokes are way too sophisticated for me, if the latter, I hope Miriam shares your sense of humour.
Love,
Still Clueless Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 10:15 am | | For Joseph: My problem with your posting is that I am at a loss to understand why anyone posting on a public message board would need a credentials check. This is not a private club. You refer to WE and I must ask who the collective WE is to which you refer. I do appreciate any comments made about my work but the main point I want to stress is that it is senseless to discuss it until everyone who wants to can see what I've found out.Tim commented on something that was already on the casebook and he did so with my full approval. Whether anyone agrees with my findings or not is immaterial, what is important is that the measurements cannot be disputed;I walked the area day and night with a surveyor's wheel and made sure to verify the measurements against maps of 1880 and 1893. Tim and Mike have read a rough draft of the book, giving some valuable insight as to items that needed clarifying, differences in American/British English, etc. After you have seen the evidence I would encourage discussion, in fact I would revel in it! There is a website, set up by the publisher, that gives the only information I am at liberty to discuss right now. Measurements from Berner St to Mitre Square (victim to victim) will be added. In any event there is little to be gained from negatively responding to a posting without even reading the document referred to. Some people see much, perceive little and understand even less.
To Wolf: By 'absurd theory' I can only imagine you are referring to Viper's posting and the 'evidence' on p 201 of The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, since neither you nor, apparently, Viper have actually walked the route yourselves.I appreciate humour myself. I have walked the routes and measured them on several occasions and at different speeds. I fear you have a limited grasp of the facts of the case since most Ripper writers, newspapers, etc agree that Stride was a canonical victim. I know she was for reasons that are revealed in my book.
Alex: You bring up some interesting points. The routes which I measured, shown in yellow on the website, have only changed in relation to subways (under the road) and railings to stop people crossing (which I climbed over to keep the routes as they would have been in 1888). Street lines remain the same, but some buildings have been demolished, etc. The only street line that has changed is Dorset Street, and I allowed for that. As for traffic patterns, photos show more traffic in 1888, especially at weekends. In relation to the Daily Telegraph letter of Oct 2 there is no evidence that D'Onston did not write this letter; he wrote many letters to newspapers. Melvin Harris informed me that D'Onston was connected to this theory as early as October. If I wished to play Devil's advocate I could simply say that it is possible that D'Onston wrote the DT letter. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 11:49 am | | DavidOz,
You have been warned via e-mail that obfuscating posts will not be tolerated on the message boards. A little quirk is appreciated. The volume of your faux-mystical, esoteric posts has become a nuisance. In case you are too far from Kansas to recognize what is happening, allow me to state it plainly so there is no misunderstanding: the more inane of your posts are being deleted. This is a temporary measure designed to give you sufficient time to adapt a more serious approach. Continued disruption will result in your being banned from the boards. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 12:13 pm | | Hi Ivor,
I hope you don't mind one question from a not very bright student.
How on earth would the murderer have achieved the required accuracy on purpose, given that he would have needed to lure each of his victims to just the right spot while they were still alive? Don't tell me he frightened them all into going with him silently by telling them he was into black magic.
Sorry for being so dopey today.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Alegria,
I AM ADAPTING...slowly (iadmit). Am awaiting Ivor's "more serious approach". |
Author: Mike Anstead
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 12:48 pm | | I have been in contact with Ivor Edwards for some time and helped to edit the manuscript for his book. I think his research is very sound. His research has strengthened the case against Robert D'Onston Stephenson, which is discussed in detail in "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" by Melvin Harris. I would strongly encourage anyone who has not read this book to do so. I believe that many people have not read this book and are biased against D'Onston as a suspect because Melvin Harris has been so caught up in the debate over the Maybrick Diary. However, each theory should be judged on it's own merits, and not by whether they like the author or what he has said regarding other theories.
There are a number of good reasons given in Harris' book for considering D'Onston as a prime suspect. One of these reasons is that D'Onston himself pointed out the cross pattern in his article of December 1, 1888 in the Pall-Mall Gazette. If you look at any map of the murder sites, you can see by eyeballing it that the first four murder sites of the canonical victims form a nearly perfect cross. This is where Ivor Edwards comes in. He decided to take a more scientific approach to determine how close the pattern is to being a perfect cross. Instead of speculating about it, he went out and gathered actual data by surveying the murder sites and measuring the distances between them. To my knowledge, he is the only person who has ever done this. Unless someone else tries to duplicate Ivor's work and comes up with significantly different results, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his research concerning the of the location of the murder sites or the distances between them. I would advise everyone to look at Ivor's map before jumping to any conclusions about his research. Whether or not Ivor Edwards has any "credentials" is immaterial. He has collected hard data, and draws the only reasonable conclusion based on his findings - that the location of the murders had to be planned in advance. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 01:08 pm | | David,
We all appreciate your efforts and know it is difficult for a leapord to change his spots (or hers). I believe you have something to contribute. I hope that you continue doing so. |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Hello Mr. Edwards,
If I may impose upon you to re-read the first post to this web site from Mr. Wolfe; I believe you will find the reason, and tone of my subsequent response appropriate.
Mr. Wolfe's message starts innocently enough, by offering the readership a web address at which they could peruse some information related to the Whitechapel murders.
Mr. Wolfe continues his message with some helpful instructions and a brief paragraph describing some of the information found on the web site previously referred to.
Mr. Wolfe begins the next paragraph with a statement that raised a red flag. He purported to speak on someone's behalf, without first offering any bona fides as proof of authority. Now I don't know about you sir, but when someone tells me they have permission to speak on someone else's behalf, they should be willing to prove it, or I'm not buying.
As you so ably perceived, this is an electronic media, anyone can come here and say anything they please, but if they expect to be granted a modicum of credibility from the populace of a web site, who's efforts are focused like a laser beam on investigatory research, they had better be able to support their declarations. As I said, anyone can come here and say what they wish, as evidenced by that Jackanapes Davidoz, but, if Mr. Wolfe desires to speak with authority, then he should be willing to provide same.
May I impose upon you once more, and ask you to read my response to him, (By Joseph on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 01:47 am) in which I ask, quite politely might I add, that he please identify himself and provide proof that he does indeed speaks with your permission. His compliance with this request means that the data he is giving us is yours, he is in effect, citing his sources, a request that is not beyond reason. If he, as your representative, expects us to include his information in our deliberations, then he must show some degree of respect for our collective intelligence, by providing proof of authority, and being able to defend the theory he is proffering. If he is unwilling or unable to do so, then why should we put any store in his statements?
We are a serious group of investigators, it is true, we are predominantly armatures, but we have a strong foundation of professional law enforcement agents, professional writers, professional investigators, and professional skeptics, as well as an abundance of recognized authorities on the Whitechapel murders who regularly contribute their expertise to this web site and in so doing, they maintain the general discourse on a rational, and focused level.
We already have our allotment of half offered halfassed theories, from within the Casebook family for the new year, but we are always willing to listen to anyone who makes rational sense, and believes in what their saying.
I would like to address the first sentence of your post, (By Ivor Edwards on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 10:15 am), on a personal level. I do not have the authority to speak on anyone else's behalf; however, I am a member of the Casebook family.
I am here everyday, listening and learning from these folks; when I use the terms we and our, I do so as a matter of observation. One does not continually interact with generally the same group of people, and unique personalities for two plus years without coming away from the experience wiser of their contributions to the ebb and flow of this small, yet distinct society. Other then this, I carry a ferret in my pocket at all times; consequently, using we and our is not inappropriate.
I hope I have adequately addressed any misgivings you may have had regarding my intentions. If not, please feel free to restate them, and I will respond when it suits me.
Until then, you have my best regards |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 02:21 pm | | Joseph...Joseph...Joseph!
When I carry out a scientic investigation I use more than 'words'. Don't confuse my 'words' for the substance of the matter under investigation.
I consider my METHOD and FINDINGS to have WEIGHT and PRECISION. (Remember that "my alphabet is a scalpel and my humour is double-edged."?)
Your posturing convinces nobody, Joseph.
As for his 'speculative' conclusion regarding the suspect/s, that is rightfully yours to dispute. |
|
|
|
|
