Author: jose luis carril miguens
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 11:33 am |        |
Dear friends,
I’d like to known your opinion about the possibility to carry out an opinion poll on Casebook in connection with the principal questions about the Jack the Ripper’s murders. Was the killer a medical man? A butcher? Did he live in Whitechapel?
Was he a poor man? Wealthy? How many victims did he kill? And so on.
The answers could be a statistical interest story. Are you interested in the proposal? If so, who wants to make this questionnaire?
Best regards
Jose Luis |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 09:38 pm | |
You're on your way, Jose, here's your first response, direct from the pages of "A.R.":
1. Medical man? There's no way to know whether someone may have had medical training or not. To say yes or no is pure speculation. The murderer did not need medical training to do what he did, however.
2. Butcher? Ditto above. Lots of people living in or near Whitechapel in 1888 could have had some butchery experience. Work environments weren't so specialized in those days as now. Don't build your case on speculation if you don't want to be rejected by the Ripperlogical cognoscenti.
3. Live in Whitechapel? The familiarity he showed with the nooks and crannies of the city is a good indication that he did. He just about had to have considerable local peripatetic experience to do what he did. That doesn't mean he necessarily was resident there at the time, however.
4. Was he a poor man? If he had experience walking around Whitechapel he'd almost have to be, by the law of averages. How many "rich buggers" promenaded there?
5. Wealthy? No evidence points to this. If you say he was wealthy, you are speculating. If you speculate, everybody cr*ps on your shoes.
6. How many victims did he kill? He absolutely stopped with Kelly. He likely started with Tabram. So you get 5 or 6, depending on where you start.
Now I feel naked. And while we're on that subject, I'd like to say there are certain individuals who post these boards I'd like to put in a similar situation. Catch my drift? Hmmmmm?
David |
Author: Esther Wilson
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 08:30 am | |
I would be very interested in reading others opinions and being able to share my own. This is a great idea.
Esther |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 04:20 pm | |
Dear David,
Yes, we know what you mean. A very nice word is "peripatetic"...the wondering Juwe.
Rosey :-) |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 08:57 pm | |
There's a reason why the cognoscenti aren't responding to your appeal, Jose. It's because they are fundamentally crooked. I know what I'm saying. They are waiting for people to give them interesting perspectives free of charge, whilst they hold back their own. They consider this a mature, conservative approach to Ripperology, a weighty manner seasoned by long experience. In fact it is quite a nihilistic one.
David |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 10:51 pm | |
Hello David.
Several weeks ago you were forced to apologize following a series of inflamatory remarks. Now you describe 'the cognoscenti' as 'fundamentally crooked'. Disagreement is one thing, but insults lead only to negativity and antipathy.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 11:05 am | |
Dear David,
Thank you very much for your replies.
For me, Casebook Jack the Ripper is a hobby. Nothing more. I have had a general interest in Jack the Ripper for a long time, but I don’t consider myself as an expert on the subject and I have no spurious interest about it. Considering my circumstances (I’m from Spain and here the interest on this subject is limited) I have the good luck to know the respectable opinions of Jack the Ripper’s world of all posters in this board and from time to time to share my own.
With the best of intentions,
Jose Luis |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 11:17 am | |
Hi, José:
David has given you some good answers to your questions. The fact remains, however, we don't know the answers to a number of these questions. The fact that the murderer seems to have got clean away each time might indicate that he was a local man, but we just don't know that for certain. If he was local, he was likely to be poor and working class, but if he was not from the area he could have been better off.
Also medical opinion is divided on whether anatomical knowledge would have been needed, therefore whether the killer was a doctor or someone with medical training is moot as well.
It would seem that most opinion gives him at least four or five victims, i.e., four if you exclude Stride or Kelly, or three if you exclude both Kelly and Stride. My own inclination is to take the traditional view that he was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride. Although there were differences in the Kelly murder, these differences could have been because of the greater time he had indoors and the fact that his technique was probably different indoors in how he killed her, with Kelly's injuries indicating she may have put up more of a fight than the other victims.
José, I hope these answers help. We are pleased to have you here on this site and welcome your participation in the discussions.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 03:43 pm | |
Garry,
Your misdirections speak volumes of the speculative positions of your case.
David |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 05:45 pm | |
Hello David.
Sorry, but I don't understand what it is that you are trying to say.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 10:42 pm | |
| Dear Garry...neither does he. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 10:58 pm | |
I would like to respectfully ask the Moderator to review the above posts to determine if they do not violate the personal attacks ruling, and to consider deleting them if they do. Thank you.
David |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 04 October 2002 - 05:46 am | |
Hello David.
Please understand that I was being neither hostile nor sarcastic in either of my previous posts. I merely pointed out that you had accused the Ripper cognoscenti of being 'fundamentally crooked'. This, to my mind, was an unjustified slur that was liable to incite precisely the sort of ill-feeling that necessitated a recent apology from yourself. No more, no less. As for your return post, I genuinely do not comprehend the point you were trying to make. But I can only apologise if my subsequent reponse was received in a spirit other than that in which it was intended. There again, though, this is exactly the kind of misunderstanding that is bound to arise once people begin hurling insults and unsubstantiated accusations.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 02:25 am | |
David,
This whining has to stop.
You said the Ripperologists here were crooked, and you accused a specific poster here of misdirection without saying what you mean or backing it up with any evidence.
To go crying to the moderator that you were insulted when one person replies with something only half as rude as your level of rudeness to others is juvenile.
Learn to play nice or stop whining when others are less than perfectly nice back to you.
Dan |
