|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Policeman...A Real Suspect at Last..
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
The Policeman...A Real Suspect at Last..
Author: Matti Kurumaa
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 09:50 am |        | Hai You all,
If some of you suppose a constable was JtR - I throw Abberline in the cage.
Br
MK |
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:20 pm | | Dan,
I am sorry, but I am looking at my 1988 edition of Jack the Ripper by Donald Rumbelow, and the letters 'F' and 'M' are clearly visible in the photograph and are apparently located on the wall behind the victim. I am neither stupid nor delusional, nor do I wear glasses; so to suggest, as you put it, that these are 'random blotches' as though I were a child incapable of telling reality from fiction or wishful thinking is slightly insulting. And again I must ask, how on Earth does one manage to write on an envelope ON TOP OF a picture and somehow manage to get not imprints or gouges to appear on said photo, but rather a black line? If anyone can demonstrate to me that this is possible under the laws of physics as we know them, I would be quite grateful. Who in the world would ever have been so careless to write on top of a crime scene photograph of this importance? Doesn't it seem that if this were the case, note would have been made of this earlier? I for one never heard ANY mention of the 'letters' until the diary hoax, neither had I noticed them. Also, as to wether or not the matter 'has been covered in these threads' doesn't mean much to me if no one involved has seen the originals to verify their position on the matter. Has anyone in here ever seen the originals? I mean, if the photograph has been defaced, someone in a position to definitively say so could help many of us by simply saying that 'yes, i've seen the originals and I have felt the indentations where the pen made the marks.'Short of this, how can I believe that they don't really belong in the pic? Of course, if someone can point me to an older source in which these letters do not appear, I woulld be most obliged to them. Just trying to get my facts straight don't you know?
Thanks again...
Jeffrey Kerstetter |
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:26 pm | | To all,
Also, in line with yet another thread, we keep speaking of serial killers changing methods or moving. Has anyone out there either seen credible evidence that Jack moved on? This I could believe, but 'changing his methods?'--I don't think so. After all, at least a couple of the 'Ripper' letters seem to be genuine (most probably at least the one with the kidney sent to Mr. Lusk), so we have a man who not only liked what he was doing, but also the notoriety it gave him. This man changed his methods to become an anonymous killer? I don't see it.
Jeffrey |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:41 pm | | Jeffrey-
One doesn't have to be "stupid" to take ambiguous data and convert read special meaning into it. Our brains are wired to try to find meaning out of otherwise random information. The people who saw the word "FIVE" carved onto MJK's face were not stupid. People see the face of Jesus in tortilla, the Virgin Mary in paint stains and elephants in clouds. It's human nature.
Black lines could be shadows resulting from copying a photo that had indentiations. You never saw the pencil over paper that had indentations trick to reveal what someone had written on the now missing sheet of paper? It's the same concept, except instead of leaving pencil marks on nonindented areas it's applying light to the image and getting shadows in the indented areas.
Who would have been careless to write on the photo in this way? Well, they didn't write on a photo, only a copy. And I don't think someone writing "Kelly, Mary" on an envelope on which a fifth generation copy of a photo was made would be all that unusual.
You seem to be under the misconception that there is one original photo that people had access to to make pristine copies for the books. What really happened is some authors copied the photo from printed copies in previous books and never saw a photo at all. Reproducing photos in this way adds a lot of artifacts to the image.
Please take the time to look into the other threads where this was discussed, as well as Stuart Evans' explanation of the history of the photos and all the various copies (and which copies where copies of which other copies) and it will become more clear to you.
But if you wish to continue on this tack I suggest you take it to a more appropriate thread, so we don't have to rehash this every time a newbie comes along.
Dan |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Dan,
Good summary about the crime scene photos. Incidentally, it's Stewart Evans.
Regards,
Dave |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 05:53 pm | | Credible potential evidence that Jack moved? How about the killing of "Old Shakespeare" in the U.S.? How about the killings in the Carribean? I'm not saying that Jack definitely up and moved, but it's certainly a more credible theory than Jack *had* to be a police officer because nobody else could have gotten away with it. Take a look at the Dissertation section here on this website and read some of Michael Conlon's essays on possible rippings in other locations. Then do a keyword search for those topics on the messageboards. There's lots of information you should expose yourself to before ruling out the possibility that Jack left London.
If you don't want to believe that serial killers can change their methods, I suggest you go read up on cases where killers were caught and identified and then come back.
Also, I think you are making yet another leap of faith believing in the authemticity of the ripper letters. The Lusk letter was thought by some to be legit because one doctor claimed it was human and had Brights disease, except that it's extremely unlikely a doctor could really diagnose that from a kidney, and more likely that it was another example of a doctor completely out of his element making snap decisions based upon bias instead of known science. The Lusk letter might be genuine, but it's also possible the kidney came from a dog, or was lifted from a dead body by medical students playing tricks.
You have built your beliefs on there being a policeman involved on a pile of assumptions that don't hold up under critical examination. That's OK, it's all too common for people looking at the case to jump to wild conclusions. But don't expect us to go along with any of them without more convincing arguments than just "I don't see it."
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 06:03 pm | | David,
My bad... I've talked to him enough on these boards that I should have remembered the spelling on his name. I know someone named Stuart and tend to prefer that spelling when typing along like a madman.
Dan |
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 11:48 am | | Dan,
I have read many times that Ripper-style killings were committed in other locations after the killing in the East End stopped, but have never seen anything other than the statement that this is so, if you follow me. Where could I find concrete evidence that these other, similar murders occured and was anyone ever arrested or strongly suspected in another location for any of these other murders? Haven't I read that Francis Tumblety was actually followed to America due to a strong suspicion that he was Jack, but that he eluded his surveilance? And for the record, I hope that I never have said that it 'had' to be a policeman. If I have, please allow me to clarify my position: What I mean to say is that if Jack the Ripper had been a police officer, it would go a long way toward explaining many aspects of the case. It just seems to me that perhaps one of the most significant clues we have is that the person(s) doing these things were/was, evidently, able to continue moving and working with impunity in the East End even as the killings and terror escalated. The other most important thing to consider, I believe, is that the killings seem to have stopped. Firstly, to know wether they did in fact stop is of crucial importance. And secondly, if they did not stop, where did they continue and how do we verify that the same individual(s) was/were responsible?
Jeff |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 06:21 pm | | Concering the question of potential ripper-style killings elsewhere in the world, read about Carrie "Old Shakespeare" Brown on the suspect's page:
http://www.casebook.org/victims/carrie.html
Then read the dissertations that are linked to at the bottom of that page for more information about suspects in that killing as well as other possibly related killings.
After that, do a keyword search on the messageboards for "John Anderson" in quotes (without the quotes and it gets stuck on all the references to Sir Robert) for another world-traveling suspect.
Dan |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 06:36 pm | | Oh, Jeff, and regarding whether you said the killer "had" to be a policeman or not, you started this thread with "For the record, the only suspect..." That seemed pretty clear to me, but now that you've clarified that you're simply very interested in researching the police for a suspect, that makes more sense.
I suggest this thread be devoted to anyone with discussing this possibility and that side conversations get shuffled off to more appropriate threads. We certainly have enough conversations already on the boards that we can usually find a suitable one for whatever we're discussing.
So, who has more info or theories on Richard Brown, Sgt. Thick or etc...?
Dan |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 08:01 am | | To Brian Schoeneman
Hi Brian
Re your message of 3rd December when you wrote "I could completely picture Jack being a member of George Lusk's vigilance committee..."
Very interesting point and one Im currently having a look
Also interesting on this point is the infamous 17th Septmeber letter where it mentions Lusk specifically (even though it was not sent to him) and says:
"Lusk can look forever hell never find me but I am rite under his nose all the time. I watch them looking for me an it gives me fits ha ha"
I think that phrase could well fit in with the idea you mentioned - would be interested in your feedback
Chris Scott |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 12:38 pm | | Message to Philip Dowe:
Hi Philip
Ive just seen your message of 28 November and part of what you were intending to do I have already done. I have compiled a list of all poice officers listed in the A-Z and have searched for them in the 1881 Census and found their whereabouts at the time
If you want me to post this I gladly will or I can mail it to you if youd prefer
I see no sense in both doing the same searches and you are welsome to see what I have if it would be of use
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 05:00 pm | | Kudos for you guys on your police officer work, maybe one of you can prove us right! And thanks for the tips Dan, i'll check those out...
Kerstetter |
|
|
|
|
