|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Modus Operandi: Strangulation/Garrotting:
Archive through 14 October 2001
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 05:08 pm |        | Letter , Correspondence Column, in the Wakefield Journal & Examiner, March 26th,1853.
"The Late Garrotte Attack"
(on a Magistrate called Barf.)
"In these days of "daring robberies & garrottings"
it becomes both individuals & police authorities to be doubly vigilant. It is to the latter, however, I wish to throw out a hint or two.
It is a notorious fact, that garrottors attack their intended victims without any warning, & noiselessly, having no doubt their feet covered with some soft material, whereby they are ennable to do so. It is a fact, not the less true, that our night patrols forewarn the midnight thief & assassin by their measured noisy tramp.
Another thing, I think, requires an alteration. I believe it is the custom of the night-patrol to take hourly-beats, and to beat given localities at certain periods, nothing more easy than for the burglar to accomplish his designs accordingly.
Signed "Observer"".
(In my opinion, this was the Magistrate, Barf) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 05:29 pm | | "Protection Against Garrotors" (The Wakefield Journal & Examiner, Nov,11th.1853)
This is a short article on recent garrottings throughout the country, and in particular, on the inventions to prevent these outrages(usually on the middle-classes). The article explains the workings of one such invention, by a Dr Atkinson,
called,"The back-hand throttle system".It could disable the attacker by firing a bullet into his guts...or, a powder burn, by means of which the police could later identify him! |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:32 pm | | How have the garrotters got into the Ripper picture? The 1850s outburst of 'choke-an'-rob' (as it used to be called in Guyana) produced a temporary street-crime panic like the 'pitch-plaster Burkers'of the 1830s, the 'Hooligans' of the early 1900s, or the 'cosh boys' merging into the 'teddy boys' of the 1950s. But by the time Parliament got round to passing a bill mandating flogging as the penalty, the outbreak had already died down.
The street crime gangs of the 1880s - the Hi-Rips, the Forty Thieves, etc - who preyed on the streetwalkers, have always figured in the background of Ripper history. But though they could be horrifically and obscenely violent (as they were to poor Emma Elizabeth Smith) I don't know that they were especially stealthy or given to round-the-neck holds. The night ladies' fear of 'Leather Apron' indicates that one man with a simple weapon approaching a lone women face-to-face could be equally or perhaps almost equally intimidating.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:33 pm | | Oh, a silly addition. I feel sick even thinking about a magistrate called Barf.
Martin F |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 06:48 am | | Dear Martin,
British social history has been one long strangle-hold. Now and then someone points this out...and we have a panic! The garrotters have been displaced - from the back streets to the kitchen.
But as a special form of disablement, Garrotting is the accomplice of Knife.
Rosemary |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 09:59 pm | | Dear Martin and Rosemary,
I have a question to ask (as I usually do). If
there had been no Whitechapel murders in 1888,
what would have been the crime of the year in
(at least) London?
This may seem like an odd type of question, but
for most of the 1880s, each year had it's leading
sensational cases.
1881 - Assassinations of Tsar Alexander II of
Russia and President Garfield of the U.S.;
Unsolved murder of Lt. Roper at his
barracks; Murder of Frederick Isaac Gold
by Percy Lefroy on the Brighton Line;
Murder of Percy Johns by his brother-in-law
Dr. George Lamson.
1882 - Last attempt to kill Queen Victoria, by
Roderick Maclean; Phoenix Park
Assassinations of Lord Fredric Cavendish
and Mr. Thomas Burke; Assassination of
Jesse James by Bob Ford; Murder of P.C.
Cole by Thomas Henry Orrock.
1883 - Plumstead Poisoning Case of Louisa Taylor;
James Carey, the informer, shot and killed
by Patrick O'Donnell off South Africa.
1884 - Flanagan and Higgins commit arsenic
poisonings for insurance in Liverpool
1885 - Murder of Chief Inspector Simmons at
Romford, and escape (temporary?) of the
actual killer (accomplice executed); the
trial of John Lee for the murder of his
employer at Babbacombe (Lee was on the
scaffold three times but the trap did not
open - he got life imprisonment, was
released after the turn of the century -
became known as "the man they could not
hang!"
1886 - Murder of Edwin Bartlett (probably by
his wife Adelaide, with her lover Rev.
George Dyson). Adelaide is tried and
acquitted. The Netherby Hall Burglars
wound two policemen, and kill a third
(P.C. Byrnes), but are captured. One of
them, John Martin, is belatedly identified
by Inspector Frederick Abberline as the
actual murderer of Chief Inspector Simmons
the year before.
1887 - Prazini and Prado cases in France. Israel
Lipski tried and convicted for the murder
of Muriel Angel by poison. Coachford
Poisoning in Ireland - Dr. Philip Cross
poisons his wife to be free to marry his
children's nanny.
1888 - Whitechapel Murders, and ?
Believe it or not, there was another case in 1888,
in London, that caused a great deal of interest,
but got forgotten amidst the horror and blood in
the east end. It was the Regent Park's Case.
It was a gang related affair with a twist or two
of its own. On May 24, near the York Gate of
Regent's park, a Mr. Joseph Rumbold was attacked
and killed by a gang of youths. It turned out
the wrong person was killed. The youths (described as labourers) were George Gallesly
(age 17), William Elvis (age 16), Peter Lee (age
17), William Joseph Graefe (age 17), William
Henshaw (age 16), Charles Henry Govier (age 16),
Michael Duling (age 15), and one other person
aged 18. Everyone plea bargained to lesser prison sentences, except Gallesly, who was convicted in August 1888. The evidence of the
trial showed there was gang warfare going on on
the streets of London.
For dramatic effect, I left out the name of the
eighth and oldest gang member - an eighteen year
old named Francis Cole. Not Frances Coles.
Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 09:03 pm | | Dear Jeff,
You have me at a loss on this question. Strangely,
it does appear that even the criminals were too afraid to go about their depredations during 1888.
On March 24th a remarkable snow-storm at Chepstow
deposited snowflakes nearly FOUR INCHES in diameter!!!
August 16th, 1888, T.E.Lawrence born..."All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men for they may act out their dreanm with open eyes...to make it possible.
("Jack" please note).
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 09:06 pm | | Dear Ed,
The above quote from, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, (1939).Talking about pillars and all that:-)
Rosemary |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 08 October 2001 - 01:00 pm | | The garrotting of the victims is interesting. It points to the fact that the victims had to be taken from behind. Which is a theory I believe. Not the garrotting but the taking of the victims form behind.
It would be hard to imagine anyone, prostitutes included, laying down in the dirty streets. Streets that were not only dirty but wet, especially in the case of the Stride/Eddowes killing. Due to police and coroner reports, we have to assume the vics were killed from a laying down position. This is because of the blood spatter. Without crime scene photos accurately showing the blood spatter we must rely on the medical assessments of the corners at the scenes (medical examiners). The cases show that no blood was spattered in an upward trajectory. It was all low to the ground and from right angles. This accounts probably for the perp not getting to spattered with blood. If the vics were on the ground, when their throats were cut then the blood spatter would be as described, low and at right angles and away from vic and perp. Problem, how does the perp get the vics to lie down on their back? He must put them there. NO DUH, that’s a gimme. He must either strangle them, throttle them or force them down. A sure tussle would ensue, trust me. With the panic on the streets the vics would kick and scream and the commotion would surely be heard. So how does he do it silently and with the vics cooperation?
Prostitutes have sex for money. For the most part, they have sex with anybody who has money. In the dark alleys of White Chapel, I am sure the most frequent way of the lady serving her client is for him to back against the wall and for her to hoist her dress and back up into him. In this position she is extremely vulnerable.
All cuts were left to right. These directions are from the vics perspective. A right handed killer cutting his vics throat from behind would be cutting from the vics left to right. Leverage would be with him, especially if he pulls up on the hair or pushes down on the back of her head as he makes the cut. The cutting of the larynx would silent any escaping scream and death would be fast.
A curious point to note, according to police and corner reports at the scene, Polly Nichols’ eyes were found open. In modern forensic circles this is an indication of instant death. Death literally being so instantaneously that the vics eyes do not even have time to close. |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 08 October 2001 - 11:56 pm | | Scott,
I think the relative position of the victim and her customer may be the other way around. In this way JTR would have her trapped between himself and the wall. Jack the Ripper may have been in reality Jack the Strangler. The victims may have been dead before they hit the ground. If garrotted or strangled by someone with strong hands the victim would be prevented from crying out. Attack from behind is most likely.
If the attack was face to face JTS might quickly force the victim to her knees where he would have tremendous leverage to finish the job. From that position is a simple drop to the ground. Much has been made of the fact these women were strong and capable of kicking, biting, scratching, and punching. That is true, however these women were murdered after a night of drinking so either they were still inebriated or weak from a hangover. They also may have been famished. So they may not have been in any condition to effectivly resist a sudden surprise attack by JTR.
In Dark Annie's attack he may have strangled her standing up and let her fall with a thud against the fence. After they were dead JTR could cut and slash with a minimum of blood splatter. He would have blood on his hands so he either wore gloves or knew where to quickly wash his hands. He most likely used the victim's clothing to rub the blood off until a source of water could be found.
Evidently there are telltale signs of strangulation. Not sure if all the victims had those signs. One method JTR might have employed is a quick blow to the face or stomach to disable and stun the victim before strangulation. If knocked unconscious he may not have needed to strangle the victim.
In the newspaper sketch of Annie before and after, she is shown with a black eye. Did this come from a previous encounter or from a powerful blow from JTR that knocked her against the fence before hitting the ground? The blood flow with all but Kelly indicates the victims were dead prior to having their throats cut.
Robeer |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:29 pm | | | So why cut the throats then , if the women were already dead ??? |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 10:43 pm | | Simon,
Why cut their throat, why mutilate their face, why eviscerate their torso, why steal their body parts, why murder these women in the first place? Unless JTR was Claude Conder, what reason did he have to kill these poor women?
Isn't this the ultimate question: why did this deranged human being do awful things to other human beings? Was JTR alienated from society or in the midst of it? Was he schizophrenic and hearing voices? Was he a split personality? It's possible he hated women and was a bully.
Maybe he adored women and had them on a pedestal but felt compelled to eliminate those who didn't fit his ideal. The Yorkshire Ripper when asked by his brother why he killed all those women replied with a simple answer, "Just cleaning up the streets".
JTR could have had a puritanical attitude that all women should be chaste and those that betray this duty are not fit to live. Deserving punishment in the extreme they not only should die but deserve the ultimate humiliation of mutilation. Or maybe he was just a mean drunk who roamed the streets looking for weaker creatures to take out his frustration on.
However, if the witnesses have any validity at all JTR was a cool, calculating killer who could disarm the defenses of these street wise women with clever conversation, thus make them easy prey for his demented and cruel aggression. If JTR was MJD maybe he resented these prostitutes thinking, " Why should my mother die while you vile and degraded creatures live?" In revenge for his mother's death he goes on a rampage.
Even if we ever do identify JTR will we ever know why he was a maniacal killer of his own species? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 06:15 am | | Dear Robeer,
You did not answer Simon's question.
Rosey:-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:22 am | | Belt and braces, Simon?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Robeer , sadly none of us are sure why Jack committed these terrible crimes at the moment : as Rosey says however , that was not my question !!!
My question is : if Jack strangled his victims to death , what then would be the point of cutting the victim's throats ? Surely the point of cutting the throats of the victims was to kill them , non ?
The inescapable conclusion is that the victim's throats were cut because that is how the murderer killed them !!! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 02:46 pm | | While examining ' The Enclyclopedia of Forensic Science ' again , I noted that on pages 82-83 that there are three main causes of death :
" All deaths can be attributed to one of three proximate causes which relate to the failure of one of the organs essential to life : coma ( brain ) , syncope ( heart ) or asphyxia ( lungs )."
It should be noted that the Ripper victims died of syncope ( cessation of the heart ) which could easily relate to knife wounds causing fatal damge to the body ( either from the mutilation or the throatcutting ).
On the other hand , both strangulation ( either manual , ligature and hanging ) and suffocation ( including smothering ) cause death by asphyxia.
Thus we can conclusively state that the Ripper victims were not strangled to death , according to the medical evidence determining cause of death.
Simon
N.B. In the case of Annie Chapman , where some evidence of suffocation appears , it is possible that this was caused by blood entering and blocking the windpipe therefore preventing breathing. |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 06:51 pm | | Simon,
If JTR did not already know then he probably learned OJT with the first victim that when you cut someone's throat the blood can spew up to 3 feet or more. To strangle the victim then cut the throat was probably for insurance. Maybe it was done to drain the blood of the victim from the top of the body. That is common in the slaughter of animals. The punching of the victim and strangulation was to control and subdue the victim then the throat cut to finish the job.
Jack the Strangler is not my original idea. I thought it was common knowledge and had been discussed at length on the boards. I presume the lack of blood spray at the crime scene plus the gravity flow of the blood into a puddle pretty much answered the question. It is possible that if JTR was behind the victim and cut the throat the blood spray would not cover him at all. Seems like the opinion of the doctors at the scene was the victims had their throat cut while prone on the ground. I seem to remember some unnamed witness reportedly saw a man covered in blood walking away from the area of the Nichols crime.
If true, this could have been JTR's first learning experience on how not to cut someone's throat.
Then again maybe JTR didn't have to cut the throat, he just wanted to out of spite. The point I was making in the previous post is the facial mutilation was unnecessary. The victim was already dead so what was the point of doing that? Pure spite or shock value?
That is very interesting about Chapman. I had not seen it before. If JTR did cut the throat while standing where did all the blood go? You would expect to find the front of the victim covered in blood. Was this ever the case with the outdoor victims? It also indicates that JTR was very quick and handy with a knife.
It is possible that JTR punched Chapman hard enough to stun her so completely that strangulation was unnecessary. This might explain why her cause of death was suffocation from blood in the throat. It could be that JTR experimented as he went by using different tactics. The size of the victim and location may also have made a difference. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:24 pm | | | The $1million question - where DID all the blood go !!!!! |
Author: Grailfinder
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 08:23 pm | | Hi guys
It has always been my opinion that all victims were strangled first in order to prevent blood flow, and that all other injuries such as facial/throat etc, were Jack's way of signing his work like any other Artist worth his merit? So Simon, who among the suspect list had an Artistic bent?
As to the Question asking where all the Blood went? Simple! it stayed where it was, but that place and the site where the body was found were not the same location.
cheers GF |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:12 am | | Dear GF,
Holy Mother of Vampires Inc...Bloody Mary?
Quaffing Rosey :-) |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 09:40 am | | All,
I have often wondered what type of sex JtR was soliciting from the victims. The only way I can see JtR assaulting his victims from the front is if they were performing (or about to) oral sex. This would place the victims in an extremely vulnerable position. I do not think JtR would risk a face to face encounter with these battle hardened ladies (drunk or not). Does anyone know if prostitutes (London-1888) regularly offered this type of service?
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 11:25 am | | If JtR decided to assault his victims while they were performing oral sex, he would also be placing himself in an extremely vulnerable position! Blow that for a lark. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 11:41 am | | Caz,
Right then.....let us say "about to".
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Grailfinder
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 11:52 am | | Hi Kevin.
Surely you cant be serious? think about it, would you pop you todger in there knowing that a 9in blade was about to slash and rip the throat just an inch away from your JT? (bet that's made the rest of the guys wince)
As for your question:
"Does anyone know if prostitutes (London-1888) regularly offered this type of service"?.
What makes you think a BJ is a 20th century vice?
Have you never seen a copy of the Karma Sutra? this form of sex goes back to Biblical times and before.
As a form of contraception the BJ and many other ways, such as slipping in through the back door! have been practiced for thousands of years and the girls in Whitechapple 1888 probably had more tricks up there sleeves than Paul Daniels!
Your thoughts do have some merit though! If the girls were in this position when attacked? it would explain the bent knees and skirt tucked under there legs position, that some of the bodies were found in. But to be honest I think your theory has to many risk's to JtR and therefore is wrong, but don't let my opinion put you off, we all make mistakes, so you will have too 'Swallow your pride' and rethink this out.
Cheers GF |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Grailfinder,
Great post. I am sort of serious. Caz set me straight. JtR may have asked for this service and while the victims were preparing, JtR went into action. About to perform, but not performing. Then one may inquire, is it left to right or right to left, and then there is Stride.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 02:07 pm | | Dear GF,
If I read your post right...you suspect foul play
elsewhere than the actual site of their discovery?
Hmm. Any evidence for this...besides Druitt's property conveyancing in the White-Chapel area?
Rosey:-)) |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 05:01 pm | | Hello Kevin,
when you say "what type of sex was JtR soliciting from his victims ?" I imagine that you are considering the soliciting of sex only a possibility.
If not, could you tell me which witness heard JtR soliciting sex from one of his victims ?
Let us suppose that your guess is the right one.
So, we have Annie Chapman bringing a client in the back yard of the 29 Hanbury street just in the middle of the way where 17 or so people would take to go to urinate or defecate right in the time where most of the people do it (a luck that Cadosh was at 27).
Could you please imagine for me her defense, or the one of her client, if both were caught by one of the kids while performing with the mouth or with the "back door" (Grailfinder).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:26 pm | | Graziano,
Absolutely,... the soliciting of sex is only a possibility. However, all of the victims were prostitutes. who's bodies were found in or near their "offices".
Unfortunately, I am sure that the men, women and children of the East End often saw prostitutes and their 'Johns' in compromising situations. So my guess is that they were not terribly worried about presenting a defense.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Grailfinder
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 10:39 pm | | Hi Kevin.
Glad to hear that you are only "sort of serious". Speculation is a cool pastime as long as you take it with a large pinch of salt.
We can never know for certain what type of activity Jack got up to with the girls, so to build a theory based on an unprovable speculation would be a waste of time IMHO.
Having said that, please continue posting this sort of "here's a thought"! as I for one love this sort of thing, it is my opinion that by dismissing or debating things that are slightly off the mark, can sometimes throw up an idea that could not have been seen through normal roads of investigation. For eg: your idea about the BJ may be tosh! but it did throw up an idea in my head with regards to the victims clothing and position of knees etc. it is rather like an abstract painting? if you stick 10 people in a room and ask them to look at the painting without the Artist explanation for the work, you will probably get 10 different answers as to its meaning, all wrong of course, but all interesting to the Artist who will then incorporate these thoughts into his next work. I guess what I am trying to say is that even total Bollox can stimulate original thoughts.
Oh! and by the way, sorry my post echoed that by Caz! seems she beat me again (ooer!) and as for her putting you straight? our own Darling of the boards could put Boy George straight! and being beaten by her, is nothing but pleasure?
Rosie.
As you know, I have never been happy with the idea that the placement of the bodies was random. The double triangle formed by the first 4 victims is just a little to perfect in my view to have been accidental, of course MJK throws a spanner in the works and does not fit in with the pattern and I have no explanation for this, unless MJK was not a JtR killing?
No, I don't have any proof or thoughts on the real location of the murders, just a gut feeling that all is not as it seems.
However, having said that, I am not truly convinced that Jack only killed 5 girls? and if we add 2 or 3 others...then there is no pattern.
If however, the girls were murdered elsewhere, then I would speculate that Jack lived alone, as I'm sure his Mum or Missus would have said something about him bringing his work home! So the question is, where can we find a list of those men living alone in the Whitechapple area of 1888? didn't the police at the time do something along these lines? I'm sure I've read something about this in one of the JtR books.
Simon.
With regards to the Boots, and I'm talking now about the ones she pawned and not the ones on her feet. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that these Boots were found laying beside the body? if so, has anyone any ideas where she obtained the money to redeem them from the pawnshop and still have money left to get as Fissed as a Part and run about pretending to be a fire-engine? Also, and I have asked this before but failed to get an answer, What did an 1888 Fire-engine sound like?, was it a simple bell that some guy shook? or some kind of horn/klaxon? The reason I ask this is that it is MHO that Kate knew the identity of Jack just as she had stated to the Doss house keeper and that the day she died she had a meeting with Jack early in the day (this would account for the money she'd obtained) now suppose Jack got her drunk or slipped her a Mickey in her drink, with the intention of silencing her for good, Kate however gets wise to his plan and escapes his grasp and runs down the street shouting, not dinga ling aling, or clang alang alang, but Ring aring aring or rather (and here I am going with the idea that most murders are committed by someone the victim knew) Ringer-Ringer! ie the landlord of the Britannia Pub where all the girls drank. Just a thought.
Cheers GF |
Author: Monty
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 04:07 am | | GF,
Nah,1880's Fire-engines went ding,ding,ding,ding clipperty-clop,clipperty-clop,(thats the sound of the bell and horses. Uncanny aint I?) never Ring aring aring !!
So thats p**sed on your theory
Monty
 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 04:48 am | | Hi GF,
That's a lovely thought - me trying to put Boy George straight, that is. I've always fancied him and his "Do you really want to hurt me?"
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 05:11 am | | Caz,
You fancied BOY GEORGE ?!?! You're right though, it is a lovely thought.
Can someone answer me this...How the hell can you strangle someone whilst they are giving you a BJ ??
That's one for all you masochists out there.
Monty
|
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:07 am | | Hi, Monty:
Unfortunately Caz is going to be left singing "The Crying Game" in regard to the likelihood of her love being returned by Boy George.
Chris |
Author: Scott Weidman
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:22 am | | Hi Monty,
All masochism aside, I believe it's possible for one to be strangled while watching BJ And The Bear. Okay, bad joke, and a bad show, I know. But in response to your question, very easily. Of course one can be strangled while performing oral sex. Now, if it were instead a game of "this little piggy went to the market" it would become a bit more difficult to reach their neck. But I doubt that the Ripper had a foot fetish.
Personally, I like to breathe, so don't misconstrue my responding to that as anything more than just that- a response. I am not a masochist.
Adieu.
Scott |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 08:25 am | | Scott mate,
I cant understand the strangling during oral sex when it would be so much easier, quicker and effective standing up, eye to eye. Greater pressure and you get the bonus of keeping the "old man" out of harms way.
I should know, I've just tried it out. My girlfriend wasn't impressed though ,talk about teeth marks !!!
The things I do for research !!!
Monty
 OUCH !!!! |
Author: Scott Weidman
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 11:46 am | | Monty,
That was just a bit too much information for me. Your research sounds more like morbid experimentation. And I feel very sorry for your poor girlfriend.
Ease up there, old man.
Scott |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 04:32 pm | | Hello Monty, Scott,
Annie Chapmann:
47 years (in 1888, not in 2001),
bad nourished,
dirty,
drunk or at least mouth alcohol stinking,
absolutely not quite beautiful,
black-eyed,
front teeth missing,
heavy ill,
probably quite vulgar in the speech,
in a muddy back yard smelling urine and worse.
Who is speaking about oral sex here ?
Or sex at all ?
Guys, I think it's time for some imagination to come into play.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Scott Weidman
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 11:00 pm | | Graziano,
I was merely responding to one simple question asked by Monty, nothing else. My response was not intended for the sole purpose of perverse amusement. And your description of Dark Annie was pure genious, so please, do tell from where exactly you garnered such priveleged information. No s**t, Sherlock.
Bye. Scott. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 07:57 am | | Hello Scott,
all the information (aside the one which I began with probably is coming from the inquest).
No time now but I will come back to you asap to state the point I want to make with that.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Scott Weidman
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 08:32 am | | Graziano,
That sure sounds like a terrific idea. I look forward to your prompt return. Many thanks.
Scott |
|
|
|
|
