Archive through 04 September 2001

** 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 04 September 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride: Archive through 04 September 2001

Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:56 am
Graziano, when all available medical reports and evidence are taken into account the answer must be that these women were at least partially suffocated. One sign of suffocation is conjestion of the face and tongue. But can you imagine a lone killer having the confidence to believe that he could hold one of these adrenaline filled and struggling women by the face for a couple of mins in the back yard of Hanbury Street. No, there were at least two killers at each of the murders and they used chloroform or something very similar. There is a thread to all these murders, Annie had certainly met her assailant before! At the first meeting he probably said to her, if you want to do this for me meet me in Hanbury Street and I will give you some money. On meeting Annie, his first words were 'will you'? Annie replied yes! He took Annie into the back yard, possibly on the pretext of collecting something from the shed. As she exited the house, the second assailant took her from behind the back door. There is much evidence in the reports to support this. She was bundled back behind the door chloroformed then laid down. PS, remember, I also have the picture and I think I live nearer! ED
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 09:53 am
Ed - Somewhere on these boards was a discussion of the two types of persons who populate them - those who insist doggedly on facts and demand substantiation for every assertion made with which others may not be familiar, and those who attempt to look "outside the box" (horrible cliche, I know, but the only one to hand at the moment) and indulge in extensive theorising to arrive at a solution. I confess to being one of the former, and as such, four of your statments in your posts of September 4 have thrown me: 1. "the graffiti was first composed on a typewriter." 2. "Several of those who worked at 'Der Arbeter Freint' were brought up in the tradition of Hasidic Jews. . ." 3. "[Phillips] said that [chloroform] was not perceived, but in reality, he wouldn't admit that he did not check for it. . ." 4. ". . .Annie had certainly met her assailant before!" Now, call me a blinkered, prejudiced, narrow-minded old reactionary if you wish, but where is the proof for any of these statements? Have you seen a Home Office report which proves the GSG was first written out on a typewriter? Have you scoured the employee rolls of "The Worker's Friend" and traced each person down to see whether they were Orthodox, Zionist, Reform, Hasid or what have you? Have you seen any writings of Phillips, any interview with him or any official memoranda where he admits to not bothering to check for chloroform? And how are you so certain Annie Chapman had met her killer previous to her death? Does the written record exist? You see what I mean. You've been on the boards long enough to expect this sort of question, I know, and perhaps it is churlish of me to expect that everything you write like this be prefaced with the phrase "I believe that. . .," but such blanket statements as those above, presented (it seems to me) not as theory and possibles for discussion but as undisputed fact, raise more hackles than curiosity. So I wonder only what research you have done to arrive at those conclusions, and if the record is available to other students of the case who wish to follow in your footsteps. That's all. As ever, Christopher-Michael (a caveat to my earlier post - I should never say never, as there are many people whose only joy is nitpicking; I will say only that in the course of my research, I have yet to come across an 1888 newspaper which employed photography. I am not saying it is nonexistent, only that I have not yet seen such an example) CMD
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 10:08 am
Here we go again..... You will note that line 2 of the graffti 'men' 'hat' denote iron and silver to the alchemist meaning exchange from a lower to a higher state. This is an example of what we know as "convincing yourself". Von Daniken saw proof of extraterrestials in every ancient object and every ancient building....you are a victim of your own theory Ed. (By the way the grafitti was first composed on a typewriter). Reasons? Sources? Relevence? Several of those who worked at Der Arbieter Fraint were brought up in the tradition of Hassidic Jewss who indeed all understood the basics of alchemy. Names? Background? References? I could easily administer chloroform without burning the skin or the eyes. You have not explained why the most simple and practical method of subduing an individual was not used (by your killers).....a blow to the back of the head. Whether you or anyone else is able to administer chloroform without burning the skin is completely irrelevent, in fact I cannot see why you insist on that method when there are more efficent methods which leave no trace evidence (odor) and a blow to the back of the head, or suffocation cannot in any way be traced back to the printing office.......you suggest a risky method, that can be traced, for no good reason, then suggest equally dubious evidence in order to cover up that trace. Really Ed, your proposal is not very practical. The hyoid bone, should have been examined at the autopsy even by the most ignorant of Victorian Doctors if it had been crushed it would have been noted! As we have no mention of it we cannot say whether it was noticed as 'not broken' (therefore no mention) or whether they overlooked the bone, or whether the area of the throat was too damaged to be able to tell. Stride should have had bruising on the right side of her neck because only the left side was severed. ED Reason? Graz. Seeing as you are relatively new to the study, why don't you seek some outside advice. Anyone worth his salt will tell you to research for yourself and learn as much as you can before forming an opinion. Otherwise you will be guilty of simply voicing the ill-informed opinions of others. Which says little for your own credence. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 11:26 am
Hi, Jon and CM: Based on his comment to me, I think Ed is sliding away from the implication that chloroform was needed for photographs to be published at that date in Der Arbeter Freint moving toward the contention that chloroform was somehow used in the printing process for the newspaper. I agree 100% that Ed should back up his blanket statements but I don't think he will. I think he will continue to trot out undocumented assertions because what he has is a theory and not concrete facts. Just like the recent visitor Rob Maloney with his Jack Sheppard (magic) theory, I think we will continue to hear Ed assert various things as if they are facts. I agree that this sort of approach is unsatisfactory to those of us who take a factual approach to the crimes. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 11:54 am
Chris. I think we are guilty of legitimizing Ed's view of these crimes by referring to them as a 'theory'. Theory roles off the tongue more easily than 'hypothesis', but nevertheless, an hypothesis is all Ed really has. To be called a theory the proposal must fit all the known facts. And as Ed is short on references, makes up his own evidence and distortes the known sequence of events, this can hardly pass for a bonafide 'Theory'. Ed would not attract so much attention if he used "I believe", "I think", "possibly", "probably", and mild qualifiers such as that. But, if he keeps on making definitive statements without any references or supporting data then he will continue to draw valid enquiries from those with higher degree of acceptance. With all due respect (to Ed), I think he has little understanding of basic investigating methods and needs to take a different perspective of his own, so-called evidence. Regards, Jon (I think we can make allowances for Graz.)
Author: graziano Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 12:04 pm
Hello Jon, I read on this boards messages reporting, among others, medical opinions, experts in criminal investigations opinions and experts on the JtR case opinions. Being very new to the study, it seemed to me that it was the best place to take advice. But I am not very new in life. Believing that one lonely man could have killed in such a way these women simply means not having a clear idea of what is a fight for life. And there, I do not need to take advice from anybody. When I say "in such a way" I mean simply rendering them inconscious and then cutting. All that silently, in the middle of a lot of people living all there around and without leaving the kleinest trace. Of course after having gently brought the victims on the sites and then (very) rapidly evaporating, with some victim's pieces in the pocket. And what victims. Easy and convenient to find, yes. But as for killing them. They were used to fight better than many men. Even two for the price of one in one hour. Even one in her pimp territory. With all the police patrolling around, also in plain clothes and with all the East End Londoners and "unfortunates" well aware and on their guards. If the general belief is that the killer was acting alone because and only because it cannot be proved that there were more than one killer that's for me only intellectual masturbation. We are not here to prove that someone is guilty or innocent to condemn him to the chair. We are here to find the truth about who did it and how. We do not have to understand and follow the legal procedures. We must use the facts that we know and some good sense to tie them together. We may also, of course we may, use the same good sense to try and find out what have been the most likely cause of what. We cannot say that Annie Chapman was killed by at least two men ? Why ? Because there is no evidence of two men having been there ? Really ? Is there any evidence that completely and definitively dismiss the case for two killers there ? No. Are there elements that tell me it was more likely that at least two men did it instead of only one ? Yes. There is my good sense that tells me that had she been taken by the throat before the fence by one man she could not have been killed silently. Impossible, my friend. Impossible, tell it to Mister Fido and Rumbelow. Impossible because she had one mouth to shout, two hands to crush her assailant balls and two feet with heavy boots to kick against the fence thus making noise to wake up not only 29 Hanbury street but the whole Hanbury street. We cannot say that the killing in Hanbury street was well prepared ? Why ? Because there is no evidence ? What do you need, a map with the use instructions written by the murderers ? It was a murder, Jon, not a public demonstration. You said once, trying to destroy Ed marvelous theory (marvelous also because the killers were marvelously intelligent) that the killer had the whole yard to do his job. No. He had not. They had only this little piece of yard (this precise yard, 29 Hanbury street) that they transformed for the purpose in a safe cage to commit the fact (see please my other posts to you on the subject). Evidence ? My good sense. Not enough ? Not enough for what ? To convince you ? It's me that I must convince. And I did it. And believe, I am the last person with whom I would not be sincer. Or Ed did it. Annie Chapman was not killed by only one man. And her murder was well prepared. This is not the most likely possibility. This is the only possibility. All others rest on specious and vicious intellectual onanieties. "Possible, but we do not have compelling evidence....". "No use to ask why it has not been done, since it has not been done, all explanation of the why is speculation....". "It could have been true but as we have no mention....".... Hey, Hey...stop...are you one of them, are you protecting a friend or a parent? Concerning all the victims, you do know that they have not been strangled. Useless that I go here in the details. But we do know that they have been rendered unconscious before killing them. So, how ? Nobody gave an appropriate answer in 113 years. Ed was the first to do it. And you ask me why I believe him ? Because he is a man on the field. He does not speak like an intellectual. Intellectuals do not speak, they ask questions and they refute arguments. No trace around the mouth ? He told you, Jon, they used a mask. One of them was (or had been) a shoemaker. Why not a blow behind the head ? "Why bother asking since it didn't happen, all explanation would be speculation" (yourself, more or less, to me, some posts ago in some other board). But I am going to tell you. You better be precise and strong to render the victim in a state that prevent her from shouting acting in such a way. Then where do you think Annie Chapman would have looked passing the door had she known that Mary Nicholls got a blow in the head. Since I suppose they had to be sure that this did not happen...... There was the strength. Nobody was understanding how. By the way, have a said such a big stupidity with the chloroform and the lungs that nobody seems willing to answer ? Bye. Graziano. P.S.: Always friends ?
Author: graziano Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 12:18 pm
Hello Jon, since I was writing I didn't read your last post. "I think we can make allowances for Graz". I am not sure to understand, but you are allowed to make whatever you want with me, as the others. If one day I am proved totally wrong in my belief that Ed got it right I will accept it without the minimal regret. Since nobody will be able to do it, I will try to do it myself. Yes, from this moment on, I will adopt your destructive attitude and I will try by myself to prove that all what Ed said and did not back up with evidences or references is simply false. Of course each time that I will get lost in the basic investigative methods, I will ask for your help. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 12:48 pm
To all concerned: In view of recent developments, here are a few more helpful links on chloroform that I intend to reference during tonight's chat: http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/chems/chlorfor.htm http://www.tesarta.com/www/resources/library/chempoisons.html http://www.soap.org/archives/chloroform.htm http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/c2915.htm The most damning fact against anyone's use of chloroform before the murders is that it is NOT rapid acting. If the lady did not want to be chloroformed - and who would under the circumstances? - she was not going to be without a terrific struggle and possibly a lot of noise. If anyone thinks that this kind of thing happened in a confined backyard in early morning light with a lot of people sleeping only a few feet away, then I have some real estate that I'd like to talk to you about. Anyone interested in further discussion is invited to tonight's chat. Please see the appropriate thread for more details. WTM
Author: graziano Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 01:54 pm
Hello Walter, "Chloroform not acting rapidly". I suppose it depends also on how much one puts of it on a cloth. In any case how long does it take ? Much or more than plain strangulation ? "If the lady did not want to be chloroformed...she was not going to be without a terrific struggle and possibly a lot of noise". And if she did not want to get strangled ? Or was she willing in this case? That's exactly why I say there need to be more than one killer. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 02:09 pm
Yes Graz. Always friends. From your poste I think you are missing my point. A simplistic solution to render a person unconscious is to strike them at the back of the head. My question was "why create a scenario calling for chloroform?", which, according to Ed, MAY be traced to the printing premises, when a simple blow to the head would leave NO trace to the printing premises. Thats what I was meaning. Suffocation would leave no trace to the printing office. Strangulation would leave no trace to the printing office. Simply stabbing her would leave no trace to the printing office. Why would these 'so-called' smart killers incriminate themselves by using chloroform?. Either the killers were NOT so smart, or its the proposal that is NOT too smart. Ed has created a complicated scenario involving chloroform then to counter this, cachous, to mask the chloroform, all unnecessary when a simple blow to the head would have been sufficient (assuming his killers exist). Now, let me tell you, Ed is NOT the first to suggest a method of subduing these women without leaving any physical clues. For several years now we have juggled with the suggestion of the killer using his complete arm around her neck, a sleeper hold, which applies pressure to both jugular veins on either side of the neck, rendering the victim unconscious by restricting blood flow to the brain. This method is not known to leave telltale pressure marks, as would be expected around the windpipe, if thumbs were used in a conventional strangulation. It is apparent from your poste's (above) that you are willing to accept a story given to you on trust, without the required research being shared. If Ed has done this research then he could answer OUR enquiries, but if he has not done it, and has resorted to a mixture of reason, guesswork & speculation then WE want him to make that clear. It is not that the proposal is rubbish, not that it is ridiculous, not even stupid. Ed's proposal needs support if he is to get his proposal accepted. Its this support, references, sources, that WE are asking for. Only then can WE decide for ourselves whether he has really solved it or not. Some of Ed's suggestions do not make sense, some are hard to accept. You (Graz.) can believe what you choose, as always, and because you are new to this study I suggested that we can make allowances because you may not be familiar with what is required in order to create a satisfactory scenario and provide a serious theory. A theory which fits ALL the known facts. Ed is far from providing an academic solution to this mystery, and Graz. this is not a game where you can make up your own rules. How on earth can you seriously try to find THEE killer and an acceptable solution unless you follow sound research techniques, and that means following certain guidlines, not the least of all is: "A requirement to provide thorough references, all sources, documentation, examples and display a thorough working knowledge of the case" We know that PC Smith saw Liz talking with a man in Berner St. at about 12:30-35am, Mrs Mortimer heard the "measured footsteps of a PC?" at about 12:35am. Saw a man pass by the Board School and saw a young couple in Berner St. (Liz & Co.?) Charles Letchford walked up Berner St. at 12:30am. When Ed tells me that two men carried Liz (chloroformed) passed Fanny's house (walking as one man) at 12:35am, then I know Schwartz saw Liz standing talking to another man in the gateway at 12:45am, (10 mins later) then either I have misunderstood what Ed has said (always possible), or Ed is trying to manipulate the evidence, or he simply does not have a good working knowledge of the case. I would prefer to think I misunderstood him, but he has not replied to my question. Regards, Jon (always a friend)
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 02:23 pm
"Chloroform not acting rapidly". I suppose it depends also on how much one puts of it on a cloth. (Graz.) Too much will burn the skin, not enough and she'll have your balls.....right Graz? You can't have it both ways my friend.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 03:01 pm
Hi, Jon and Graziano: Maybe we should be looking for a suspect of the name of Balls-Chloroform? Best regards Chris George
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 03:07 pm
There's a programme for U.K viewers tonight Tuesday 4th Sept, BBC2, 9:oclock this evening, called THE MIND OF A MURDERER. Could be interesting!! Caz, you take most interest, will you be watching?
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 03:26 pm
Graz. You said: "No trace around the mouth ? He told you, Jon, they used a mask. This is not a game of avoiding the answers, if Jack made the victims put on a mask before he applied chloroform, perhapse you can help us understand how he would achieve this. Take a minute out Graz. and just consider what you are being fed. It strikes me as this scenario is getting sillier and sillier. Regards, Jon
Author: graziano Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 03:50 pm
Hello Jon, wait, wait, wait...... You are too quick, you go too fast. I have now to take a break to analyze all what you have said concerning theories, hypothesis, investigative methods, working knowledge.......... And also to make the point concerning all your reproaches to Ed's theory. And of course to put together all the points he made (do not forget they are split all over the boards). I have also to review all what I have already said because I begin losing my steps here. I think it will take some days. Do not worry, what is important, as you said, always friends. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 04:37 pm
That OK, my friend, you take your time. And confer with your buddy if necessary, plan a new strategy Can you ask Ed to poste his complete theory in one location for the benefit of our serious readers. Thanks, Jon
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:54 pm
I know that many of the workers at 'Der Arbieter Fraint' were brought up as Hassic Jews because I undertook proper research methodology. . For one example, my research on William Wess, and I quote: 'He was the son of a Chassidic master-baker, and at the age of twelve apprenticed to a shoe maker. To avoid military service he was smuggled out of Russia in 1881. East End Jewish Radicals 1875-1914. William J Fishman, Duckworth 1975. I have spoken to his living relatives to confirm this! Chassidic, you will understand also means 'Hassidic'! Hassidic Jews link with alchemy you can research for yourselves! Its so easy to give a search a word like 'chloroform' taken from a search engine then spit out the results, but it's not proper research! We must examine what those who used chloroform had to say, and here, I will quote you one of the earliest records concerning its use. From, Simpson, who helped to perfect using this chemical and his experiences are far more important! Chloroform: It was discovered in 1832 and used as an internal medicine before its properties as an anaesthetic were discovered. In 1847 James Young Simpson, inspired by experiments made by two Americans, William Morton, and Charles Jackson with sulpherous ether, decided to try the effect of chloroform. He ( Simpson) and two assistants inhaled some- and promptly collapsed unconscious under the table. Simpson's butler, finding the three, thought they were drunk, and considerately loosened their collars for them. Research by listening to those who used this chemical is paramount, whereas recent reports are misleading because the author has probably never seen the substance used! And amount to scientific hearsay backed up by bland researchers! Concerning the second line of the graffiti 'men' 'hat'. I can only again offer you this site and it is up to you to further the information by proper research. Note at the top of the text that I have researched the correct dates. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/egyptian_symbols.html I have to go to bed, will continue tomorrow. ED.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:09 pm
The use of method tells us much about the killer here. The fact that he did not slug the victims over the head might tell us that he did not need to , that the victims were comfortable in his presence. Could the victims have been drugged with something , hence not requiring chloroform to render them senseless , or maybe they were even asleep. Then they were suffocated with perhaps a pillow. Just a suggestion. Again , this suggests more than one killer ; a lone killer might well have gone for a knife or a cosh to kill his victim as soldiers dispatched sentries in World War 2 - quickly and quietly. If Jack killed his victims by cutting their throats from behind , thats fine it would explain everything. Except - what happened to all the blood spraying from the throats of the victims ? Simon
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:18 pm
Drinking a sedative does not cause bruising around the mouth. Chloroform causes arrythmias, another better word is ventricular fibrillation. The heart beats but in an uncoordinated way therefore with no force! ED Simon how is your dog?
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:24 pm
To all concerned: One of the links I furnished earlier describes the use of chloroform in anesthesia, wherein the patient is told to take deep breaths until too comatose to act consciously. There are many chemical agents that will produce immediate unconsciousness and/or death, but, alas, chloroform is not among them. For use in surgery, chloroform chemical burns were prevented by liberal application of petroleum jelly to the areas in contact. This too seems rather unlikely, given the evidence we have. Use of a mask of some sort seems even more unlikely. Finally, strangulation can produce rapid unconsciousness if the thumbs are placed properly. This, possibly combined with a stunning blow to the face (there is some bruising to be accounted for somehow) would produce the result desired. There have simply been too many women strangled throughout criminal history - and quietly at that - for it to be disregarded in favor of a relatively slow-acting anesthetic. We will explore all of what has been said thus far - and there has been a lot - in chat tonight. Everyone is urged to attend. WTM
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:31 pm
Goodnight ED.
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:33 pm
Jon, I can understand that it seems ridiculous two men sounding like one, and it may well give a theatrical impression of the killers keeping their feet in unison. However, it is not what the killers may have thought that counts here! It is what Fanny would have interpreted using the sound she encountered every day as a comparison. On hearing a heavy tramp, Fanny would not have thought well I think that's a couple of chaps who have chloroformed a woman, now dumping in in the alley. Fanny would have associated the noise with something she heard on a regular basis. And like it or not, two men carrying an unconscious woman past her house would have sounded just like this. Unless Berner Street was on enroute to the deep-sea divers ball. Goodnight ED.
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:40 pm
Walter, back your words up please. You are talking total rubbish! ED
Author: Alegria Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:43 pm
Did anyone else just have a full-on "pot and kettle" moment..or was that just me? Ally
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:47 pm
Actually it was a 'kettle and pot' moment! ED!
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:51 pm
Sorry, Ed, I do not talk rubbish in here. I am 100% serious when it comes to JTR. We will discuss your case thoroughly in chat tonight, but please understand: Chloroform is NOT a fast-acting anesthetic. Someone being chloroformed against their will would be able to put up a struggle for some time. At the least, chloroform anesthesia would leave a rash on the skin. With longer contact, small chemical blistering would occur. Strangulation IS very effective at producing unconsciousness. Consult a reference volume such as Medicolegal Investigation of Death. When this chloroform discussion began months ago, YOU were the one posting rubbish such as your statement that chloroform was flammable, when in fact, it is not. Unfortunately, those early posts are now gone from the former board. But we welcome you in chat tonight assuming that you are available - or willing. WTM
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:57 pm
Ed Lets deal with one issue at a time. You mentioned Fanny's mysterious footsteps. Can you put the events in sequence from 12:30am till 1:00am in Berner St.? - PC Smith saw Liz talking with a man around 12:30-35am. - Schwartz saw Liz talking to a man around 12:45am. At what point was she chloroformed and carried down Berner St.? Thanks Jon (tomorrow will do nicely)
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:17 pm
O'K Walter, read your own research, the third website you recommend concerning the rapidity of chloroform; section 1. ED.
Author: Alegria Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:29 pm
It doesn't say it is fast..it says it is faster than ether. And it says that it usualy works in about 15 breaths. We average about 12 breaths a minute. When you figure that the first thing someone is going to do when chloroform is slapped over there mouth is hold their breath, that buys them a few more minutes. Then they would fight, kick, and squeal..you can make plenty of noise with something covering your mouth, enough noise that someone 10 yards away could hear you. Doesn't seem likely to me.
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:32 pm
The I. N. W. C. was selected a the perfect place to levae the body because it had a reputation of Jews who were disliked by local gentiles. The scene noted by Schwartz was scripted in order to underline that Jews were involved in the murders. As were the others, Liz had a rondevouz with the killer. He specifically asked her to meet him outside the I. W. M C, at a certain time. This is the very reason that she left good company in the pub to make her way to Berner Street. Liz arrived early because she thought her customer was a bit special! But this was a set up! Only idealists would think of leaving the body outside their own establishment! But it worked! Honestly, I have just been grafting for many hours and it is time for some blinkers and ear muffs! finish tomorrow. ED
Author: Jon Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:40 pm
By all means Ed, get some rest. But please give the board something more than your thoughts as to how & why it happened. We need something that fits with the known facts. - She was on her feet at 12:35am. - She was on her feet at 12:45am. - She was on her back at 1:00am. (figure of speach) At what point was she chloroformed and carried? Thanks, Jon
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:41 pm
Alegria, average breaths per min are 18, when in panic, and the adrenaline juices are in full flow the heart requires more oxygen and the respiritory rate increases up to about 42. It would then have taken about 15 seconds to knock someone in panic unconscious. In Victorian times the emphsis was actually to calm the patient down! I hope you do not want a ref for this, or do you? ED PS I use oxygen saturation monitors evey day!
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:46 pm
Alegria, who told you that the average resp rate is 12 Per Min? Or is the kettle calling the pot black yet again?
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 07:55 pm
Examine the autonomic nervous system! ED
Author: Alegria Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 08:06 pm
Actually, Ed..the average rate of a person is anywhere from 12-20. Yay for you working with oxyegen tanks. I am proud of you. That doesn;t mean you know what you are talking about...you could be the one who applies the little rubber valves. And no I am not going to examine the autonomic nervous system. You are in the habit of giving orders that you expect others to snap to. So let me say it. No. You don't want to back up a thing you say, you want to avoid every question that is posed to you and play the enigma man. So, no, I won't. You have a theory that you want to be the right one. Maybe some will believe you. The way you are carrying on, teh majority won't. I doubt you care as your only intent seems to be to post as may one line posts as you can in a five minute period. I leave you to those who have the patience to deal with you.
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 08:15 pm
Goodbye kettle. ED.
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 08:24 pm
Alegria, comparing your last post to your other writings, you appear to be very upset, if my writing has been in any way to blame, I am indeed very sorry. However, I belive that you realize in your heart I actually know the real name of 'Jack'. I wish that I did not! ED. Would you like the essay I have written, properly exposing the killer!
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 08:37 pm
Ed - Thank you for the information on William Wess. One man, however, does not equal several, and you did say "several." Have you any further reference than the secondary source of a book and the discussions with family members? I was also quite aware that "Chasidic" and "Hasidic" are the same thing. Please do not presume on my intelligence. I await your explanations of the Goulston Street Graffitto being composed on a typewriter, Phillips' incompetence and Chapman's knowledge of her killer. And you may add this - "Liz arrived early because she thought her customer was a bit special!" Really? Are you sure that should not be "because I think her customer was a bit special?" As well, anyone with a child who has respiratory problems might be sufficiently familiar with an oxygen saturation monitor; it is hardly an esoteric piece of equipment. Black calling to black, CMD
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 09:01 pm
Chris, I can't sleep therefore, do you mind if I just begin to explore one of the questions you have posed? Concerning oxygen monitors, are we discussing acute asthma? ED
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 09:15 pm
Dear Ed, Some Hassidic Jews might have an interest in the subject of alchemy...but the practitioners were in the main- in the western tradition-christians of one sort or another. D'Onston (for example) would have been familiar with the subject matter. Rosey:-)