|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
JtR: Black Magic to invoke Jack Sheppard?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
JtR: Black Magic to invoke Jack Sheppard?
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 11:28 am |        | One last thing before I go.
The elements of fire and water are very important to those that practice certain types of magic. The area of Blackfriars and Newgate figure prominently in the Jack Sheppard story. If someone wanted to invoke the spirit of Jack Sheppard they might have gone to the Blackfriars bridge to do it.
On October 1, 1888 The Times reported:
Last night, shortly before midnight, a man, whose name has not yet transpired, was arrested in the Borough on suspicion of being the perpetrator of the murders in the East-end. Yesterday morning a tall dark man wearing an American hat entered a lodging-house in Union-street known as Albert-chambers. He stayed there throughout the day, and his peculiar manner drew upon him the attention of his fellow lodgers. Certain observations which he made regarding the topic of the day aroused their suspicions. He attracted the notice of the deputy keeper of the lodging-house, whose suspicions became so strong that he sent for a policeman. On the arrival of the officer the stranger was questioned as to his recent wandering, but he could give no intelligible account of them, though he said he had spent the previous night on Blackfriars-bridge. He was conveyed to Stones-end Police-station, Blackman-street, Borough.
The inquest in the Berner-street case is fixed for today at 11 a.m., at the Vestry-hall, Cable-street, St. George's.
The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee have addressed to the Queen a petition praying that, in the interests of the public at large, Her Majesty will direct an immediate offer of a large reward for the capture of the murderer.
Well, there you have it boys and girls. The case in a nutshell. Black magic, Jack Sheppard and the extortionists on the Vigilance Committee. Of course, you still have to know what you are looking for if you expect to find it.
So goodbye for at least a while anyway.
Nice move, Alegria. Do you really think this makes things less confusing? I quess what you couldn't achieve with words......
Rob |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Robert , your theory about the ' Dear Boss ' letter is very interesting , I'm not sure about runes being associated with black magic or folk magic but never mind.
My question is : can you prove the writer of the Dear Boss letter was actually the Ripper ? It may well be a black magic spell , but that doesn't mean the murderer of Mary Kelly or Liz Stride was the same person who wrote the letter !
Simon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Hi All,
I think this is all dead funny, because my own suspect for Jack, some two years ago now, was Weedon Grossmith, who appeared to have more connections with Jack Sheppard and the theatre, particularly the Pavilion Theatre in Whitechapel, costume and make-up, learning about ladies' internal bits and pieces (from his life-drawing classes when he was a budding but mainly unsuccessful artist) etc, than you can shake a stick at. He also came close to being conned by the notorious prostitute Tottie Fay, and Sir Melville Macnaghten had a portrait of Weedon, as Jack Sheppard, hanging next to a print of the real Sheppard. Weedon referred to Macnaghten in his memoirs thus: 'the "boss" of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard..'
(The speech marks round "boss" are Weedon's, not mine.)
Tell me, Rob, are black magicians usually also into fireworks in a big way? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 08:44 pm | | Suprising vindication for the Caz theory here ...lol
Simon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 07:48 am | | Alas, Simon, if only I could prove it...
As you know, people who ever had fave suspects are told it's unscholarly, stupid and illogical to say "Go on, prove he didn't do it, then", and I entirely agree. But look what happens when it comes to people's fave suspects in the case of the dodgy diary. Then it's apparently fine for those people to tell others, who haven't got all the answers, "Go on, prove the Barretts didn't do it, then." Doesn't seem fair somehow... I guess the rules can be broken when utter belief reigns supreme.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 06:10 am | | Dear Robert,
I take it that the above mentioned "clippers" are
also the shepherd's "shears"? This item of divination was used with the sieve as a means of
finding stolen property, et.al.,
Your folk-magician is the village "cunning" man/ woman.
Witch Rose:-) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 11:35 am | | C:\pics
 rune.jpg |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 11:37 am | | Dear Rob,
On with the motley! Your post of the 26th as usual made less sense than before.
You start by saying 'You might want to ignore this mistake, but I'm afraid I'm not going to. You purposely did not point out as I have that he wanted to write the letter in blood'
First what mistake are you talking about? I simply have no idea? My statement is correct, it is a fact - the only connection with the letter and ginger beer is the author mentions a GINGER BEER BOTTLE. Are you aware of the difference between a bottle and the liquid kept in it? Try this simple test, pour half a pint of ginger beer over your head, you will get wet and a little sticky. Now strike yourself repeatedly with a ginger beer bottle, after an hour or two you might just appreciate the difference.
So I purposely did not point out the author wanted to write in blood. Read, or better still get someone to read it for you, the last sentance para 2 of my last posting. It says "I do realise that his intention was to write the letter in blood....." Now 4th sentence para 5 "We all know the author wanted us to believe he wished to write in blood......" How on earth can anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of the English language take those two clear, concise unequivocal statements and say they mean exactly the opposite?
You say you believe you have answered every relevant question about this theory. Once again you are totally in error. You have never answered a single question. I again ask the simple question about the runic symbol can I please have an answer this time? If the author wanted to inscribe the symbol on the postcard Why didn't he just draw it? Supplementary question If the Dear Boss letter is such a powerful spell and therefore of more importance than the postcard Why was this not also adorned with the symbol?
In any case I believe your interpretation of the symbols are faulty.
Slight problem, the picture posted seperately.
The two symbols shown here are Algiz, Sedge Rushes or the Elk on the left and Eihwaz The Yew Tree.
Algiz is a symbol of protection but of a more spiritual nature. Control of the emotions is at issue here. Algiz serves as a mirror for the Spiritual Warrior, the one whose battle is always with the self.
Eihwaz on the other hand is the power to avert blockage and defeat, far more suitable for protecting a physical object such as a letter.
Some of you may wonder why I have a set of runes to hand, I would tell you but my oath as an Golden acolyte of the Sixth Ipissimus prevents me.
You say that believeing Hutchinson is the killer is the worst theory you are aware of. Well lets see. Hutchinson was an actual person, with a proven abode in the area. He knew at least one of the victims and is the only suspect to be in the area and at the time of one of the killings. He demonstrably lied to the police and fits the physcholigical profile on nearly every count.
On the other hand we have a band of magicians, comprising of we don't know, living we've no idea, and seen by no one, whizzing around the rooftops writing runic symbols that no one else can see, murdering prostitutes and using bits of their bodies to conjure up the spirit of a long dead criminal so it can show them where the money is.
How silly we must all be not to see the strength of your case immediately!
good luck
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 01:53 pm | | Hey Bob , I have a set of those plastic Runes , that you collect from the cornflakes boxes , too.
Does this make me also a Golden Acolyte of the Sixth Ipissimus as well , or is there more to it than that ?
I am now checking into hospital (+) after the ginger beer test , suffice to say I now know the difference !
Simon
 |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 08:11 pm | | Dear Simon,
Foolish mortal, with Cornflake packets you can only rise to the level of minor neophyte (unless you slip me a tenner in which case you can be a Golden Salamander)
How do you do that new smiley face - I've tried to invoke the spirit of Buster Keaton to show me but it told me to bu**er off.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 08:32 pm | | Hi Bob,
A list of all icons can be found in Pub Talk:Icons and the code for using them is found in Formatting located at the right of your screen.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 09:45 am | | Hi, Ally:
Looks like we are developing some flaming new icons here! 
Chris George
Initiate to the Inner Sanctum
sanctified by the Holy Fire
|
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 12:07 pm | | Hello Robert Maloney,
I did not read and follow the discussion about your theory because:
a) It was to difficult for me (too long and I have some language difficulties),
b) I have always believed it to be not very realistic ( I apologize because I know that it represented for you a huge work but put it, seriously, on my ignorance on the matter ).
Today I heard on television (I am now in Italy) that very likely behind the killings of the "mostro di Firenze" there was black magic.
Maybe this confort you.
From my side I am going to begin reading your theory.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Donald Hochner
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:32 pm | | Hi Robert Maloney -
I hope you're still around and check this board.
I've been much interested in the Jack the Ripper for over a year now and like everyone else, we are curious and trying to figure out who was the suspect. I think the key is both the witnesses and the letters. Yesterday I was reading "Analysis of "Dear Boss" and "Lusk" letters and then "JtR: Black Magic to invoke Jack Sheppard?" and finlly your theory threads. I'm not sure if you've written somewhere else but if you do, please let me know. I've read most if not all of your posts and others as well and I thought your theory on black magic, Jack Sheppard, and there may be more than just one murder is very interesting and thought provoking. I'm curious to know if you have written an article about this? If not, I think you should write one for "free" for everyone to read in your own website. That way you may not have to re-write to anyone who is interested your theory. What do you think?
I have some questions to ask if you don't mind and fill me in. It doesn't have to be long one. Here's it goes:
1. How many women do you think the Jack the Ripper killed?
2. When the killings began and end?
3. Why the killings ended?
4. Were each woman killed by one same man or different men?
5. Which letters were written by the Jack the Ripper? Just three as many believe?
6. What does the phase mean, 'The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing'?
7. Do you think any those suspects were involved the killings or part of the "black magic" group?
8. About violin and watch, why are they important?
9. Some witnesses saw someone like 34-35, 30, 35, 30, 38, 25-30, and 37 years old and 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-7, 5-7, 5-5, 5-7, and 5-6 tall. If you do your math, which is your field, do you think it is possible to have one murder? Like for instance, if I'm a clever murder and want to play the game with the police and the press, I can wear different clothes, grow beard for one killing and then clean shaven for next and then grow mustache in few weeks for the next victim. Even I can write different style to keep them off the track. What do you think?
I think that is sufficed for now. Look forward to hear from you and thanks for your time.
Donald Hochner |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 08:10 pm | | What a shame. After writing this up, I realise this thread is already dead! Oh well, here goes anyway.
- Jeff
Rob,
You’ve mentioned numerous times your expertise in probability theory and your foresnic background. But, much of the evidence you cite seem to go against what these backgrounds would have taught you. For example,
Gateways: What is the probability that a body can be found anywhere in London of 1888 and not be near something that is an arch/gateway symbol? Since doorways and alleys count (What other gateway is Stride or Chapman near?), the probability is so high that it is almost impossible for them not to be near such a symbol. Therefore, even if it fits with your theory, it is not support for it. Why because even if your theory is wrong, the bodies being near “gateway” symbols has a high probability of occuring by chance anyway. Both forensics and probability theory should tell you this.
Deerstalker hats: The “deerstalker hats”, are not the most common hats being mentioned. Apart from it being easier to make some sort of connection between runes – antlers – and deerstalker, what about “wideawake hats”, “round hats with peaks”, “bonnets”, and other head-gear. Now, before you actually answer, if you can explain how all the headgear described “fits”, doesn’t that mean hats/headgear is like “gateways”? Meaning, no matter what the hat was you could have such a symbolic connection to your theory, and therefore, the probability of showing such a connection between hats and “black magic” is very high, not very low, even if your theory is wrong? Which means the hats are not evidence.
Runes: There are no runes/letters on the wall in Mary Kelly’s room. What some people see in the photos are not there in other, higher quality prints. If there was writing on Mary Kelly’s walls, what’s the probability that all the people who entered the room missed what is apparent to some people today in only low quality versions of a photograph? This would have to be assigned a low probability, meaning, the likelihood that the runes are even there is very low. And since no-one seems to be able to agree if your rune is 1) present, 2) actually a P, 3) actually an F, 4) actually an E, or 5) something else not yet described. Without evidence for one or the other, and without getting into the infinite problem that 5 proposes, you only have a 1 in 5 chance.
Candles/Organ removal: You’ve mentioned the idea of stealing a kidney for candle making. And, you’ve mentioned that the runes are “Germanic”. The idea of making “theif candles” from women’s wombs was part of German folklore (the light from such candles was thought to send the occupiers of a house into a deep sleep: No, I don’t know how the theif was to prevent the same happening to themselves – but hey, it’s magic!). Now, this fits, as wombs, or parts thereof, were taken from Chapman and Eddowes. Nichols could have been interrupted as the two carmen came down the road, Stride is thought to be interrupted, so no wombs are taken there. But Kelly, her womb was not taken (it’s mentioned in the autopsy report, hence we know she was not pregnant at the time). No interruption, no womb taken, no kidney taken either? If kidneys and wombs are such important parts for whitchcraft, why aren’t these hard to find ingredients not taken every time there’s a chance (i.e., why wasn’t Chapman’s kidney taken, why wasn’t both of Eddowes kidney’s taken, why wasn’t either of Kelly’s kidney’s or her womb taken?) And, if you wish to argue that hearts are important (hence the taking of Kelly’s), why aren’t the other hearts taken, or at least why wasn’t there some apparent attempt to get them? Meaning, if the removal of these parts are because of their importance to “black magic”, and given that you can’t go to the local Chandler’s shop and just pick a few up, then at all the murders where there was opportunity to get these items they would have been taken. So, Chapmans’s kidneys should be gone, Eddowes other kidney should be gone, attempts at Chapman and Eddowes hearts should have at least been made, and all of these organs would be taken from Kelly. With such a high value on these organs, what’s the probability they would have been left behind? Very low, if your theory is correct, but high if it is wrong and the killer is just taking bits that appeal to him at the time.
Reading of the “Dear Boss” letter. As has been mentioned before, the reading of the Dear Boss letter is entirely consistent with your theory. But, it has to be since you’ve admitted this was what prompted it in the first place. You developed a theory based upon your interpretation of the Dear Boss letter. Then, you went out to find support for it. However, because your theory was originally proposed to explain the Dear Boss letter, you can’t then say the Dear Boss letter is support for it. And, because there are other readings of the Dear Boss letter that do not require a complicated de-coding of the words, but are based on the meaning of the words as written. It is generally accepted in all areas of invesitgation that things are never as complicated as they possibily could be. Your theory is based upon interpreting the evidence in a very complex mannor. As a probability expert, you would know that such an explanation is given a low probability to begin with while the simpler explanation, that also explains the evidence, is weighted with a higher probability.
So, let’s actually do our maths, shall we? We have two theories, the current one and “something else”.
We have a low probability theory (due to unnecessary levels of complexity when simpler explanations do as well) and the low probability of important organs being left behind when opportunity was there to take them. Multipling our two low probability items together, gives us an even lower probability. Remember, we can’t use either the hats or the gateways because these are “non-evidence”; both are highly likely to occur regardless of the truth of the theory, so we can’t count them as evidence. If we use Bayes Theorem, which can be used to calculate the probability of a theory given some evidence (if, and here’s the rub, you could actually determine the actual values that go into the calculation), and you are no doubt aware, this situation means your theory actually goes down in value.
Bayes’s Theorem is A = X/(X+Y)
Where A is the probability of a theory given some evidence
And X is the probability of the theory before the evidence times the probability of the evidence if the theory is true.
And Y is the probability of the theory being false times the probability of the evidence if the theory is false.
So, let’s say your theory is assigned an initial probability of being true based upon your reading of the Dear Boss letter. This is before you look for evidence to support it. Since you obviously have a high belief in it, let’s assign it a high probability so you don’t think I’m cheating here. Let’s give it a 95% chance.
But, as I’ve argued, the chance of all the organs not being taken from at least Kelly is low, say 20%.
So, X = 95 * 20 = 1900
(probability theory is true times probability of the evidence given the theory)
And Y = 5 * 80 = 400
(probability theory is not true time probabily of the evidence if not true)
So new weighting = 1900/(1900+400) = .826 = 82.6% : The evidence Lowers the probability of the theory, meaning, it’s not support!
And, let’s add in what happens with the runes on Kelly’s wall (I’ll even assume there is something there!). That only has a 20% chance (see early in post) of being true as well. Although the probability of the evidence (being a rune) would be near 100 if the theory is true and near zero if it’s not, we don’t know if it is actually a rune, so we have to factor in the likelihood of it being a rune, which is 20%. Also, we have to use the 80 for “evidence given theory is not true” because the “thing on the wall” is probably not a rune, which has a high probability if the theory is not true.
So X = 82.6 * 20 = 1652
And Y = 17.4 * 80 = 1392
So the weighting now shifts to:
1652/(1652*1392) = .542 = 54.2%
In other words, the evidence you claim supports your theory is either non-evidence (all theories can explain it: gateways, hats) based on what’s known as the Baysian indifference condition, which basically states that if all theories can explain the evidence, then beliefs should not change; it’s not evidence (see Horwich, 1982:Probability and evidence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, for more detailed descriptions of Baysian proabilities) or, it is actually such that it should actually lower one’s belief (meaning it’s not supporting at all!)
Evidence such as “Blackfriars Bridgeman”. You have mentioned a lot of things that are symbolic. If Blackfriars Bridge was so important, why do none of the murders happen there? The Bridge would satisfy the “arch” symbol as well. If fire is so important, why does only one of the murders involve fire, and why is that fire not used “on the body”? There are no burns on Kelly’s body, she was not ritually “cleansed” by fire in any way.
You’re approach is to only look for confermation of your theory, but a theory makes predictions about what should and should not be. It’s not enough that some of the things that “should be” do occur, but if other things that “should be” do not occur then you have a problem. For example, if Kelly’s murder was a ritual “mass”, then there should have been other signs of a ceremony beyond that of the body. Such rituals are time consuming, requring symbolic vocalisation and movement (examples being chanting and dancing), but no sound was heard, apart from Kelly’s possible cry of murder between 3:30 and 4:00 am. So other things that should have occurred during a magical ritual did not occur, which weakens your theory.
Additionally, none of the outdoor murder locations would be suitable for such ceremonies, hence your theory doesn’t fit that evidence unless you argue they weren’t examples of the “mass”. But the same pattern of mutilations occurred, which shouldn’t happen if on Kelly these are evidence of a sacred ritual (i.e., you don’t just go play around with the sacred rituals of a cult). The murders were done quickly. There was no time for “magical rituals”, although the murders were “ritualistic” in so much that the murderer appears to repeat the same murder over and over again; and does so very quickly and silently – and that’s what your theory requires not to be the case! Not quick, not silent.
By ignoring the implications of your statements you are selectively examining only things that support your interpretation and ignoring that which does not, and that is the danger. When making any theoretical claim, you are also making predictions about the state of things – there are implications that follow, and if these implications are shown not to be true, than that means the original claim is also not true. There is nothing wrong with posing a complicated and unique theory, such as yours is. But there is something wrong if you then only look to support it. Remember your probability training, one bit of disconferming evidence outweighs a ton of confermation. As a probability expert with a forensic background, you would know this.
- Jeff |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 01:01 am | | Hello Jeff,
I must say I truly enjoyed reading your probability analysis. And, in general, I would agree with a good deal of what you wrote. However, I doubt you will be shocked to learn that I don't agree with everything you have written. You are certainly correct in placing low probabilities on many of the points I raised to support the theory that this case involves either witchcraft, occultism or satanism. However, this is where the math gets tricky.
-A hag is a-Stride on Burn-her street-
It is not likely one would find as many supporting points in favor of occultism in a random murder investigation. Simply put, it is incorrect to assign low probabilities to each 'theory point' and then multiply them together resulting in an even lower probabililty. And I'm sure you know this. How you frame the question is extremely important. What is the chance of finding this many arrows pointing in the direction of occult involvement in a purely random murder investigation? The chance is near zero. There are numerous points to support the argument in favor of occultism/witchcraft/satanism. The witchcraft element pops up even when you're not expecting it. Too bad no one asked the green-coat-wearing James Kent during the inquest why he kept lowering his neck into his blue and white spotted handkerchief which encased it. I can assure you his answer would have changed the way some people see this case. And the same can be said for "Thomas Coram" after he crossed-over and 'found' the bloody knife with the "twisted and folded" handkerchief on the 'bottom step' of the laundry. But it always possible all this had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper, or, should we say, Half the Ripper. Half a kidney...half an apron...half a...
And since you have taken some time in analyzing this I am sure you know I can ramble on endlessly.
But it is late, so thanks again for an interesting post. It was a GAS.
Rob
The Devil's Sooty Brother |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 02:00 am | | It's the number of arrows that is the point though. These arrows that you describe are not unusual events; they are everyday events, or events that have a high probability of occuring even if your theory is incorrect, such as the gateway symbolism. It's almost impossible for a body to placed in London and not be near a gateway symbol, therefore, you cannot conclude that being near a gateway symbol points in any direction, away or towards, occultism.
If, on the otherhand, these were murders in the country, where most of the area was say open fields, but all the bodies were placed near the only gateway/archway symbol around, then you would have something that's meaningful. Something that contains information about cite selection.
But none of your evidence is of that nature. And, as I mentioned, a lot of things that would be expected IF these were occultist murders are absent, while the few that are present do not require such levels of complexity. Finding this many points that fit "occultism" is only support if those same points don't equally or better fit "non-occultism" explanations. Also, what is the probability that an occult based series of murders would be so devoid of overt occult evidence? Serial killers who have occultist ideations/fantasies leave overt signs, i.e. pentagrams is the modern cheesy symbol. Murders that are committed by occult groups are done in private locations, with lots of ceremony, not out in the open streets. There's this ritual ceremony that's involved. Even then, when these locations are found, they have tons of evidence of occult activity. For these murders, all your evidence is re-interpretation of common everyday events. People wear hats, there are lots of doors/arches/alleys in London, blood drips from a moving knife and leaves an oval drop (i.e., oval blood drips on Strides hand - blood dripping from a knife moving away from the throat wound would leave "medium impact splatters" - which are oval in shape, round would indicate a slowly moving object, oval medium, and long lines, fast moving). None of these things are in fact evidence of occultism, so none of these can be counted in your quiver of arrows.
Of course, if you could prove there was a rune on Mary Kelly's wall, that would be the sort of information that would have a lot of information. It's highly unlikely that a rune would be drawn on a wall by someone who wasn't at least familear with occultism. Unfortunately, you can't prove that. You can beleive it's a rune, but without something more tangible as proof, means all you have is a theory that there is a rune. And you can't use a theory as evidence for that same theory; circular logic. Note also, if it were a rune doesn't mean there's more than one person involved, only that there would be occult overtones to the case.
If you are going to make headway with this idea, you're going to have to find evidence that can't easily be explained in the absense of your theory. So far, however, you have no arrows for your bow rather than the plethera you claim to have.
- Jeff |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 08:32 am | | Hello Jeff,
I am way too lazy to debate any of the small supporting points such as where the bodies were placed and why. And I can't say I agree with you that the bodies would be found in such places purely by chance. Also, you seem to believe that without evidence of ceremony an argument in favor of Witchcraft is weakened. Why? Maybe the killers were looking to find a particular Witch by finding some identifying mark, such as a unique birthmark. Or maybe these women were given some "poison" (ethanol-vinegar?) in their apple-Jack rum meant to induce nausea? Perhaps this is why Mary Kelly felt so sick. What do you think nicknames like "dark" or "black" implied? Maybe some of these women had some other physical indicator of being "different".
Have you ever written down all the various names used by the victims to see if there were any common links? Perhaps this case involves followers of Mary Magdalene. All of these theories could be true without any overt signs of ceremony.
I just read where you said if you had to bet on any of the letters being real you would place your wager on the "From hell", no-name 'downunder' letter. I would suggest that you then place another bet on the Openshaw letter as well. Both letters are linked by, among other things, their underlying Cabbalistic symbolism.
And what about the 'saucy Jacky' postcard smudge? Is it a rune, or horns or some other Y symbol? It sure looks like an intentional symbol to me. Wax and crossroads and chevrons and on and on. And all the number symbolism could be, of course, pure coincidence. 'Black' Mary Kelly's room was 13. (maybe Jack was born on the 13th) No doubt this may mean nothing. But what about her burial arrangement? Another coincidence? And then you have possibility of scapegoats as well. This would lead us down the road of onomatology. And it is too early to travel that road.
Terrytop Rob |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 11:13 am | | You are correct. If I accept the Lusk letter, then I should say the evidence lies in favour of "the other letter". Unless the handwriting eviidence can be discounted. Content? Or maybe there's something else that makes me think it's not quite right?
But then, since I'm still not sure of what "is real", and I am only trying to put the pieces toghter I think I'll leave it at the fact you're correct in so much as I lean towards some evidence over others, but I think I've explained why.
- Jeff |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 12:00 pm | | Rob,
The rune.
- Jeff |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Well Jeff, hopefully, one day soon, "someone" will reveal "something", so we can all go home.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 04:50 pm | | Dear Robert,
There really was no "13" Millers Court! And "runes" are not 'Germanic'!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 06:47 pm | | Dear Rosey,
I didn't say that "runes" were Germanic. I said that there are three main pantheons that can be attributed to the runes: Nordic, Celtic/Druidic/Anglo-Saxon and German. And that I was using German (Pow-Wow) interpretations. :-\
For example, M=Ehwaz = horseman and female energies and is invoked to bring people together or split them apart. Pretty fitting, I thought.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 04:27 am | | Dear Rob,
Just lighting a few fires around your feet to keep you moving. Don't forget..."reality is a forest of symbols."
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 08:10 am | | That's o.k Rosey, I was humbly trying to do the same thing. Which reminds me - are you going to write more about Mary Kelly and her photograph? That was very interesting to say the least - so don't leave me hanging, Rosey.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 09:20 am | | Dear Rob,
All in good time. What did you find interesting about this "perspective"?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 04:58 pm | | Hi Rosey,
You mean what was interesting about the words, "FULL STOP" and "SOMETHING UNREAL"? :-) Are you suggesting that the scene was "staged"? Also, what did you mean about "13" Millers Court? But would you agree, anyway, that the number "13" might have had some significance to those involved?
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 04:26 am | | Dear Rob,
I am not a theatre critic. My musings are those of one emerging from a dream-state.
I have been thinking about your 'Black Magic'thread and John '0's 'narrative' thread.
It would be a useful synthesis if we adopted the term 'Magical Realism'. This permits the reader to
review such arcane matters through the prism of pre- and post-Christian narration? A return to the fold?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 01:01 pm | | Hi Rosey,
Hopefully and indeed, interesting. Didn't mean to overlook the 'all in good time'. Sorry 'bout dat, Rosey.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 03:16 am | | Dear Rob,
Cornelius Agrippa said of the lapwing: "There seemeth something royal about this bird". It playeth the decoy!
Off to play with my broomstick.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 09:12 am | | | Yes, Rosey, I know. But.... |
|
|
|
|
