|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
From Hell... The Jack the Ripper Mystery (Hinton)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
From Hell... The Jack the Ripper Mystery (Hinton)
Author: Judith Stock
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 11:32 am |        | Just a thought here......any ideas on what a wet, bloodstained black or navy blue piece of material looks like at night? Trust me, it only looks wet .....not bloodstained. If the hands were clean, or relatively so, and there was nothing showing on cuffs (if there WERE cuffs), there would have been nothing, at all, to notice.
Just musing on the assumption (NOT yours, Harry) that our friend would have stood out like a pig at a Kosher barbecue, because of his bloodstained clothing......
Cheers to all on a fine, soft Monday morning,
Judith Stock |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 09:09 am | | Hi All,
Jon, I saw a very similar thing at a place in London called the "London Dungeon" or some such. It was on the south shore of the Thames, very near Tower Bridge - I'm sure some of our London-based readers know of it. Along with a somewhat cheesy dramatization of the Ripper murders, the place was also a museum of medieval torture methods, including the "rat in a basket" you described above. I'm not sure to what extent the exhibits were historically accurate, but there it was. All in all, a very disturbing place.
Bob Hinton, good to see you back on the boards.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Judith Stock
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:21 am | | Jim, You're right, it IS the "London Dungeon". It's on Tooley Street, and if you tube to the London Bridge Station, you'll be standing in the line as you exit the staion.
We went there last year, again, and found the Ripper exhibit has been changed to come MUCH closer to actual crime scenes, except for Kelly,
which is depicted as being behind an upstairs window. The others, though, have been fairly well corrected. I sense SPE's fine, discerning hand in this: his Reid book was premiered at the Dungeon, and I would bet he shamed them into being more accurate......after all, weren't the crimes horrible enough??? Isn't accuracy ENOUGH of a terrible truth?
And, you're right again, Jim, it IS a disturbing place. I was more disturbed, though, at the ways organized groups (go on......say it!! OK....religious groups) found to separate people from their souls. Systematic, devised and organised forms of torture upset me far more than the recreation of a few crime scenes. Man seems to an homicidal animal; we don't appear to have advanced very far from the caves......and DO NOT COME AT ME WITH TECH ADVANCES, a computer DOES NOT prove that man has grown with his appurtenant technology. Sadly, it also appears that men have spent more time figuring out how to kill one another, than they have in trying to figure out WHY one group cannot speak to its' gods in its'
own ways, without waging war on the guys over the hill, who speak to THEIR gods in THEIR ways.
Oh, well....philosophy 101 has left the building.
Cheers to all,
Judy |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:47 am | | Judith,
I've seen a number of your postes playing around your lack of understanding in the reasoning of "man". Same here!. As I get older, that lack of understanding on my part gets stronger, and if you think too hard about it, it can be frightening. I don't need to mention examples, it's all around us, anywhere in the world. If "man" is such a top of the tree species, why does he feel the need to make his enemies suffer before killing them?. Why don't we all have the view that if we must kill, do it quick and put them where they can not bother us again, we think so highly of our selves, and yet we can behave like vindictive demons.
Religion!! to put it mildly that can be a dirty word. How could the Afganistan authorities justify destroying giant Buddha statues that had stood for centuries, a God that represents pacifism. As time goes on we get worse, not better
Rick |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:01 pm | | Hi, Rick and Judy:
A very dear Jewish friend, Alvin Ford, who died recently used to point out that the worst wars are those that are based on religion. Look at Northern Ireland and the Middle East, problem areas that will unfortunately probably continue to suffer outbreaks of violence because of the ingrained religious differences. Also, Rick, I agree with you entirely about the sickening news from Afghanistan of the destruction by the ruling Taliban of the giant Buddhist statues.
Although I am not Catholic, I attended a Jesuit college here in the States, Loyola College in Maryland, where one day I had a debate with an old priest who insisted that things were getting better. I thought then (circa 1970) that all the indications were that the world was not improving, and I still think so. Or at least there is no evidence that mankind has learned from its mistakes.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:20 pm | | Philosophers of Time, all,
Yes, I too think dreamy old Hegel was probably wrong about the morality of "Progress" through dialectics and what he saw as an inevitable march towards "Absolute Knowledge."
And my only famous scholarly acquaintance, Elie Weisel, who still sometimes teaches a course at a college just down the road from me where I taught for a couple of years, is always readily able to offer powerful and convincing proof of the nightmarish advancement of hate and cruelty and the constant struggle that remains for us all to overcome them, even if for only a moment at a time.
On the other hand...
the past sucked, too. 
--John |
Author: Judith Stock
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 02:50 pm | | Thanks to all for the agreement.....I had begun to think I was just incredibly cynical (which I AM) and that I was viewing the glass as half full.
If anyone can attest to the "art form" that sheer evil has risen to, Wiesel is the one!! And don't even get me going on the Buddhas!!!!
John, indeed the past sucked, but have we become ANY BETTER, other than, of course, our ability to kill more efficiently, and in greater numbers?
Dear CG,
I've found the Jesuits to be great thinkers with enormous Sophist abilities, but when confronted with historic evidence that the Church (and, all organised religions, for that matter) indeed, has a lot to answer for, tend to fall back on the arguments that the Church has done good, as well.
REALLY? Bringing smallpox to tiny islands where the disease is unknown? Bringing clothing to parts of the world where clothing is absurd? Bringing "salvation" to groups of people who were quite happy with the gods with whom they communed on a daily basis? Bringing narrow ideas of who would, and would not, be eligible for heaven? Bringing "education" to people who were already educated in what mattered most to them, and then denying them the chance to use that eduction because they weren't white? Forcing conversions on Jews who were quite happy with God and His world, and then centuries later burning descendants of these same Jews because the original conversions were "suspect"? Denying the ability to control the size of a family when the parents were hard pressed to support one child, never mind multiple children? YUP, the Church has indeed done well.........financially, at least!
Oh, poop, I wasn't going to do this!!!
Cheers to all; now that I've vented for the day, I can get on with the really important stuff.... like laundry, or reading, or wandering through these boards.
Judy |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 03:46 pm | | Dear Judy,
Have we become any better *morally*? Of course not. That is why a position of constant vigilance is necessary at all times within the process of ethical decision making. We have indeed, as you suggest, consistently found more efficient ways to do violence and harm to others.
On the other hand, and putting aside the moral problem for a moment, my own rather privileged life is a whole lot easier and considerably more comfortable, in a million little ways, than it would have been only a hundred years ago.
Of course, I am a moneyed, young, white male in America at the dawn of the new millenium, and the world is pretty much mine.
For much of the rest of the planet, life continues to be very difficult and painful in many, many ways.
No, no progress, as Hegel defines it. There is no line along which we are advancing, steadily marching forward. In fact, I suspect Nietzsche has probably gotten it closer to what's happening, and we are not moving "forward" at all, but in ever tightening circles...
And sometimes we just have to get away.
This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why, come Thursday morning, I am heading up Interstate 4 for about ninety minutes and spending four escape-filled days at the "happiest place on earth." My extra long weekend will be spent in the midst of the Great Disney Empire, carrying my yearly Florida Resident's pass, that gets me into all the parks without stopping to buy tickets, and staying at a resort called "Dixie Landings," where, I suspect, there will be no real sign of the time and place that would have once celebrated a poem called "Ten Little N*gger Boys."
Soon to be headed for the Mouse...
--John
PS: At one time, in EPCOT Center, there was a tee-shirt for sale with a picture of the Earth wearing a world-sized pair of mouse ears. The logo on the shirt read,
"One World. One Mouse."
It was soon no longer being offered, either because no one was buying it or because someone made the Disney folks aware of the rather ominous echoes of recent history to be found in their world-conquest rhetoric. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 03:53 pm | | Bob,
It's great to see you back. I had been wondering where you went to. Now, onto the discussion...You say that there must be a million reasons why the organs of the deceased were not found on or by them. Other than your two suggestions of rats and incompetent doctors, I'd like to know of at least one other. Considering the short length of time between when Eddowes was killed and when she was found, the rats would have had to work awfully quick, and must have known exactly what they were going for. While not the size or weight of the heart, a uterus and a kidney are certainly more than 'morsels'. Another thing - If the rats in Whitechapel were so thick and would snag any meat or droppings that hit the ground within seconds, how did Ostrog stay alive by eating discarded food off the streets? As to incompetent doctors overlooking the organs as mentioned in your book, I find it nothing short of impossible that these doctors could have simply forgotten a uterus and/or a kidney on a woman. Surely they would have noticed that there was a couple extra pieces! As far as your claim that there is 'no proof' that the killer left with the organs, you must be admonishing the 'Lusk kidney' as an absolute hoax with no concession that it may be legitimate. I don't believe that's quite so cut and dry. The killer cut these respective organs from his victims' bodies. Those organs were not found with the victims. The only logical conclusion is that the killer took them away with him and had a dwelling of his own (not a lodging house) to which he could retire. This summation is backed up by over 100 years of serial killer studies done since the Ripper.
You mention that no one would have thought twice if Hutchinson had walked into his lodging house with blood on him. That may be so, although someone probably would have taken note of it and mentioned it to the police when they were questioned shortly after the 'double event', especially since butchery was not Hutchinson's known profession and he probably didn't come home often with bloodstains. I still say, as does virtually every other student of the case, that whoever the Ripper was, he left the scene of the Chapman and Eddowes killing with parts of their body. If Hutchinson had his own private room in which to retire to, then he deserves consideration. If he didn't, then he does not.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I still enjoyed the book, Bob! |
Author: Judith Stock
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 04:35 pm | | Dear John, Tom and Bob,
John, find Hiaasen's TEAM RODENT before you spend another dime in that place......please!!! You're right that we haven't gotten any better; it's just the peripheral goodies that we enjoy...and we DO enjoy our goodies.
Dear Bob and Tom,
While I really enjoyed your book, Bob, I don't find your argument for Hutchinson convincing; the rat thing, I must take issue with, too, as I don't think the rats would have been able to REMOVE an entire organ completely, and leave no evidence of rats behind.....we all know the kind of evidence I mean...rat poop......at least, no evidence that was ever remarked upon. I DO think one of the doctors would have observed that he had found rat poop in the wounds, if he had seen it. Hutchinson was, I think, succumbing to the temptation to be drastically important for a moment; his "description" of Kelly's male friend is almost unbelievable in its' detail. While I might be convinced of Hutchinson's role as a stalker of Kelly, there is no real hard evidence that he did anything more than watch her obsessively for a long time, as she stood with another man at the entrance to Miller's Court.
Good try, Bob; I appreciate your investigative abilities, but this one is a non-starter for me.
Actually, no one has yet convinced me that ANYONE could be more than a "maybe" in this case, and strangely enough, I don't mind a bit. After all, if we were to absolutely identify Jack, where would the fun be in that? The only thing that would convince me, actually, is the Polaroid of Jack standing over Kelly, knife raised......but since that has gone missing, I guess I'll never really know the truth.
See you in September, Bob?
Judy |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 04:44 pm | | Judy,
Yes, I've read Carl's fine and funny book a couple of times. Also have more than few friends who are still "cast members" or have worked there in the past, and I know all of the horror stories. Hell, I even know the best places "back stage" on the rides and behind the scenes to have "amorous encounters" -- the garage at the Grand Prix Raceway has long been an employee favorite, as well as as the employee cages inside Haunted Mansion. I even know about a few recent deaths at the parks that have received minimal press. And in my younger days I experienced the Magic Kingdom after licking a certain sort of stamp or two and... But all this is for another time and another place. I still love drinking my way around the world at EPCOT.
Baudrillard, in his essay on Disney, reminds us that the trash cans there bear the printed words, as if they were a command to consume conspicuously,
"Waste Please"
-- John |
Author: Judith Stock
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 05:27 pm | | Glad to hear it, John; I like everything Hiaasen does, and find him hysterically funny. My sense of humour is often verrrrrry strange.
Judy |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 08:05 pm | | John,
Are you referring to the Apollinian/Dyonesian motions in Nietzsche?
David |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 08:53 pm | | David,
Actually, that particular remark of mine, about the ever-tightening circles, concerned Nietzsche's theory of "Eternal Recurrence," as spelled out to some full degree in Zarathrustra, though originally sketched in The Gay Science. By the time of Ecce Homo, Nietzsche had refined this idea from a metaphysical one to a more personal one concerning the eternal recurrence of his solitude and despair, but also of his love of work and his joy in his writing.
But the Apollinian/Dyonisian discussion in The Birth of Tragedy -- wherein he actually argues for consideration of the supplemental relationship between the two, against the prevalent clear and binary distinction and prioritization of the former put forward at the time by Winckelmann and adopted by Goethe (and eventually reduced into near absurdity by Arnold and his "sweetness and light" formulation) -- that discussion works its way into this complicated theory of repeated time, since Nietzsche does not simply play one side of the A/D opposition off against the other or call for only a reconsideration and simple restoration of the latter Dyonisian character, but details and demonstrates the way in which both need the other for their own meaning, as supplements of one another. I think Walter Kaufmann is pretty good on this.
My favorite Nietzsche, though, is the dancing, prophetic, and epigrammatic one of Ecce Homo. It is in this last book that Nietzsche foretells his own future and predicts his tragic and violent (mis)reading at the hands of National Socialism:
"I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something monstrous -- a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite."
--John
PS: Peter Sloterdijk's 1989 book Thinker on Stage, from the University of Minnesota Press, is a particularly interesting and provocative reading of The Birth of Tragedy and the distinction you raise. It also offers, I think, a fine approach to thinking about Nietzsche's writing in general. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:41 pm | | I hate to disagree with so many generous-minded ethical philosophers, but I think we have shown some signs of valid moral advance.
1. It would now be virtually impossible to find anybody putting up a moral defence of chattel slavery.
2. My Lai. I seriously rate this, or rather its aftermath, as one of America's finest hours. I know of no other nation in history which has put a serving officer in a war which was being lost on trial before combat-experienced assessors, and found him guilty of atrocities against 'enemy' (or allegedly treacherous allied civilian) nationals. This is a quite astounding advance of morality over patriotism.
But maybe you feel I'm just a disciple of Dr Pangloss.
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:13 pm | | Hi Martin,
It is possible, of course, to suggest somewhat darker interpretations of your two offered "signs of moral advance."
"1. It would now be virtually impossible to find anybody putting up a moral defence of chattel slavery."
Well, not quite everywhere, but assuming we are talking about the "developed and developing nations," this might be because such a defense is no longer necessary since changes in global markets and international economies and developments in various technologies have made chattel slavery no longer necessary or even advantageous. Slavish late-industrial, capitalist, corporate and consumer obedience will do just fine and it offers the added stupefying bonus of the illusion of a principle of "freedom."
"2. My Lai. I seriously rate this, or rather its aftermath, as one of America's finest hours. I know of no other nation in history which has put a serving officer in a war which was being lost on trial before combat-experienced assessors, and found him guilty of atrocities against 'enemy' (or allegedly treacherous allied civilian) nationals. This is a quite astounding advance of morality over patriotism."
Or it was the result of an expedient set of calculated political decisions made at a time when certain leaders felt that in order to secure their position they should offer a dramatic performance of "morality" to a country that needed to feel as if it had psychologically begun to come to some sort of terms with its own guilt over inflicted horrors and the impending first defeat of the American empire. Calley, I believe, was useful to both sides.
I'll leave it to Judy to offer the innumerable opposing signs of "non-moral advance."
But, then again, perhaps I am just in a dark and cynical mood because I am staying up until 11:30 to watch the one and only showing of the new Madonna video because both VH-1 and MTV have somehow decided they won't play it in rotation because it is "too violent" and I smell publicity machinery all over this thing.
I don't know. Please don't take any of my readings above too seriously. These are, in reality, complicated issues that would require much more care and much more responsible discussion on my part to do them justice.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 10:12 am | | Dear Martin and John, (We're only missing Abraham, so you know what I'm going to say about My Lai)
I have to agree with John on this (she said cynically). The trial after My Lai was a "proof" to the rest of the world that the US was NOT REALLY an aggressive, mindless, killing nation; I think Calley went down for it because of politics and nothing more; what his conviction tried to present to the country, itself, was a picture of a moral leadership with firm conviction and a desire to be "right".....even if it meant embarrassing revelations. Most people I spoke with, at the time, felt Calley was a scapegoat for the entire government and its' policies.....can't tell I'm a child of the 60's, can you?
Thanks, John, for leaving the cynicism to me.
Complex issues? Yes, by all means, but when an act is immoral, by ANY standards, that's simple. What Calley's band of fools did that day was immoral, and that is simply truth. The reasons for what they did....frustration, anger, sense of betrayal, fear, heartbreak, loneliness, sheer terror, misery, WHATEVER.....will forever be a mystery for those of us who have not stood in their shoes. SEE??? I CAN have a heart!!! While
always condemning the immorality of what this country and its' leaders did in Viet Nam, I can't find it in my heart to condemn the men and women who went there, did what they saw as their duty to their country (we may argue over that one), and returned home minus their hope and their souls. THIS is a painful place for me, and I think I'd better stop here.
Thanks, Martin for trying to find a place for me to find refuge..in the lack of a moral defence for chattel slavery thse days. You're right, but NOW the defense is financial, not moral. I guess, given the tenor of the times, financial justification is the new moral compass for this millenium.
Ahhhhh, it's a grey, sleety day and my humours are depressed (you could NEVER have guessed that), so I'll cease and desist.
NOW, who out there agrees that Queen Victoria, in a fit of pique, was Jack the Ripper? She MUST have worn a false moustache and lifts in her shoes, RIGHT?
PLEASE, let's not be dreary anymore.
Regards to all on this grey day...and why is it spelt GREY AND GRAY? Anyone.........??
Judy |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 11:08 am | | Martin,
I've lived in America all my life and I can assure you and everyone that morality here is at an all-time low. I hope it's better in England.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 11:32 am | | Dear Judy,
We must have scapegoats...were would we be without them, eh? |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 12:06 pm | | How true, Rosemary. Scapegoats and Judas goats ....why are the GOATS always to be vilified?? I happen to like goats and sheep and alpacas and donkeys, et.al. Why not scapeVULTURES or Judas TICKS, or some such?
Another of those things in life which makes one go hmmmmmmmmmmm.
By the way, my home county is Cumbria (really Westmoreland, but we won't go into THAT) and I'm appalled and saddened by the devastation being wreaked on the livestock in that, and other, counties in the British Isles. The latest report on NPR was from Penrith, about 3 miles west of the town my family is named for (or vice versa... who knows?), and I was moved by the pain in farmer's voice. We can only imagine how the farmers of Britain are feeling, as their lives' work is destroyed before their eyes. Condolences on this tragedy which will, I fear, affect us all before it ends.
Judy |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 12:28 pm | | Judith! I am shocked! I never thought I'd ever, ever hear you utter such condemnatory words based on nothing more than stereotypical imagery. Why should it be a scapevulture or scapetick? It's just because you judge them on appearance and habits and don't like them. Shame. Shame.
And I am surrounded by cattle farms, living daily among the disinfectant dips, closed paths, the anxiety of friends... It's genuinely hard to comprehend what's happening, even when it is happening in the fields I can see right now from my office window. |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 12:49 pm | | You're absolutely right, Paul.....I stand shamefaced and with head hung low.....but WHY must goats suffer so????? Isn't that the same sort of stereotypical imagery we are trying to avoid here? Nope, it's not because I don't like 'em, so I must retract my condemnation of vultures; unpleasant as they are, they DO serve a real purpose. TICKS, on the other hand, serve no purpose I can discern..and after MUCH research and probing questions to biologists and bugologists, I find the only known purposes of a tick are to serve as disease vectors and to be a pain in the patoot! Therefore, I stand by my original scapeTICK, and Judas TICK appellation.
SO THERE, MR BEGG.....how like you those apples?? And isn't this better than my previous postings full of doom and gloom?
Judy |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:05 pm | | Dear Judith,
I am sure you are well aware that the goat was a substitute for the real thing. Jack might well have been a closet-goatherd...that should cheer you up!:-) |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:11 pm | | | Well, Judy, I dunno about being better than your earlier doom and gloom postings. I mean, there are about 850 species of tick worldwide – you have 82 species in the US alone, but then the US always has to have more of everything! - and they are responsible for several major and very unpleasant diseases. Fairly doom and gloom in themselves, nasty little things. But their mother's probably love them... :-) |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Dearest Paul,
Just an aside here......WHY in the name of all that's holy, would you POSSIBLY know, OR CARE, how many species of tick grace this fair planet?
Curious in Virginia.... |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:47 pm | | | I looked it up so that I would seem erudite. I feel so left out sometimes. |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 03:51 pm | | Aaaahhhhhhhhh, gotcha!!!
Sheesh, you're erudite just by using the word! And if you feel left out, tell us what you are eating and drinking and listening to right now!
Come on in....the water's fine.
Judy |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 07:41 pm | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Bob Hinton on Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 07:31 pm:
Dear Everyone,
While I don't mind defending what I have said it's getting a bit irksome to keep
defending what I did not say!
Judith
I agree with you that rats could not REMOVE an organ, I have NEVER said they
could ( if by remove you mean detach from a body given the time available in this
case) Where did you get the idea that I have said such a thing? Look forward to
seeing you in September!
Tom,
Nice to hear from you again and thanks for the welcome!
First off another reason for the missing organs. Mortuary attendants could have
misplaced or taken the organs whilst preparing the body for autopsy. Living in a
society that sold bits of tanned murderers skin as souvenirs I would put nothing past
them. Now please everyone I am saying this is a possibility - not that it happened!
Can you please tell me where I have ever spoken or written of incompetent doctors?
I am at a complete loss to understand this reference as it is news to me! However
while we are on the subject of doctors, I believe we are wrong to endow them with
too many God like powers of never making a mistake. I have two death certificates
in front of me, one dated 1919 and written by the womans doctor who had treated
her for the last fourteen years. He gives the cause of death as 'valvular disease of
the heart'. The other is dated a year later and gives the cause of death as 'acute
arsenical poisoning'. ( a gold star for the first person who can identify the woman).
Now they can't both be right can they?
You say in your posting '(I) must be admonishing (sic) the 'Lusk kidney' as an
absolute hoax with no concession that it may be legitimate' I refer you to page 107
in my book:
"This fact alone makes me wonder if this could in fact be a genuine letter from the
murderer...."
and on page 109:
"My personal belief is that if any of the Ripper letters are genuine - it is this one"
How on earth do you read these two statements as giving 'no concession that it (the
Lusk letter and by association the kidney) may be legitimate'
You go on to say that your conclusions are backed by over 100 years study of serial
killers. I would dispute this. All the information that has be gleaned about serial
killers are the results of interviews and interrogations of those killers who have been
caught, in other words the failures. (If you accept the premise that a successful
killer remains uncaught) We have absolutely no information on those killers who
have eluded capture, for all we know they remove organs to play football with or to
use them as bait to go fishing, they might even want them for a snack on the way
home.
Your conclusion that the killer took them away with him is therefore based on
incomplete information. Any conclusions drawn must be backed by hard evidence
and this evidence must form links that fit together to compete a chain. It doesn't
matter in which order the links are discovered but they must be there. You cannot
say I have found A and B therefore the next step is C. For example if a suspect was
stopped with body parts on him before the victims were found, and then later you
found a weapon lying in the street and then the corpse you have your chain. I
believe in the Nilsen case they found the body parts first even before they realised
the men had been murdered.
Let me give you an actual example. A few years ago in South Wales police broke
into a cottage and found the owner sitting in his armchair with a wound to his chest,
and the pistol that caused the wound on the mantelpiece several feet away. Several
items on the mantelpiece had been disturbed and a vase was broken. Forensics
showed that the shot had killed the man instantly and the blood stains showed he
had been shot in and had not moved from the chair.
Now it would be in order to assume that the man had been shot by an intruder who
placed the pistol on the mantelpiece and was then disturbed whilst in the process of
robbing the place and fled. No other scenario seemed possible and it was a perfectly
sound conclusion to draw. Until a remarkable SOC officer noticed two things, one
the victim had arthritis in his hands and two there were fresh scratches on the arm
of his chair. This is what happened.
The victim had a pistol unknown to anyone else and used it to commit suicide. His
crippled hands meant he could not hold the pistol normally so holding the but in
both hands he used the arm of the chair to pull the hammer back (apparently I am
not allowed to say Co*ck), hence the marks. Holding the pistol in both hands with
his thumb on the trigger he fired. The recoil flipped the pistol backwards and
deposited it on the mantelpiece. This was actually reproduced on three separate
occasions.
So whilst I agree that it is a possibility the killer took the body parts, we cannot say
that it definitely happened.
all the best
Bob Hinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise your Message
Dear Everyone,
While I don't mind defending what I have said it's getting a bit irksome to keep
defending what I did not say!
Judith
I agree with you that rats could not REMOVE an organ, I have NEVER said they
could ( if by remove you mean detach from a body given the time available in this
case) Where did you get the idea that I have said such a thing? Look forward to
seeing you in September!
Tom,
Nice to hear from you again and thanks for the welcome!
First off another reason for the missing organs. Mortuary attendants could have
misplaced or taken the organs whilst preparing the body for autopsy. Living in a
society that sold bits of tanned murderers skin as souvenirs I would put nothing past
them. Now please everyone I am saying this is a possibility - not that it happened!
Can you please tell me where I have ever spoken or written of incompetent doctors?
I am at a complete loss to understand this reference as it is news to me! However
while we are on the subject of doctors, I believe we are wrong to endow them with
too many God like powers of never making a mistake. I have two death certificates
in front of me, one dated 1919 and written by the womans doctor who had treated
her for the last fourteen years. He gives the cause of death as 'valvular disease of
the heart'. The other is dated a year later and gives the cause of death as 'acute
arsenical poisoning'. ( a gold star for the first person who can identify the woman).
Now they can't both be right can they?
You say in your posting '(I) must be admonishing (sic) the 'Lusk kidney' as an
absolute hoax with no concession that it may be legitimate' I refer you to page 107
in my book:
"This fact alone makes me wonder if this could in fact be a genuine letter from the
murderer...."
and on page 109:
"My personal belief is that if any of the Ripper letters are genuine - it is this one"
How on earth do you read these two statements as giving 'no concession that it (the
Lusk letter and by association the kidney) may be legitimate'
You go on to say that your conclusions are backed by over 100 years study of serial
killers. I would dispute this. All the information that has be gleaned about serial
killers are the results of interviews and interrogations of those killers who have been
caught, in other words the failures. (If you accept the premise that a successful
killer remains uncaught) We have absolutely no information on those killers who
have eluded capture, for all we know they remove organs to play football with or to
use them as bait to go fishing, they might even want them for a snack on the way
home.
Your conclusion that the killer took them away with him is therefore based on
incomplete information. Any conclusions drawn must be backed by hard evidence
and this evidence must form links that fit together to compete a chain. It doesn't
matter in which order the links are discovered but they must be there. You cannot
say I have found A and B therefore the next step is C. For example if a suspect was
stopped with body parts on him before the victims were found, and then later you
found a weapon lying in the street and then the corpse you have your chain. I
believe in the Nilsen case they found the body parts first even before they realised
the men had been murdered.
Let me give you an actual example. A few years ago in South Wales police broke
into a cottage and found the owner sitting in his armchair with a wound to his chest,
and the pistol that caused the wound on the mantelpiece several feet away. Several
items on the mantelpiece had been disturbed and a vase was broken. Forensics
showed that the shot had killed the man instantly and the blood stains showed he
had been shot in and had not moved from the chair.
Now it would be in order to assume that the man had been shot by an intruder who
placed the pistol on the mantelpiece and was then disturbed whilst in the process of
robbing the place and fled. No other scenario seemed possible and it was a
perfectly sound conclusion to draw. Until a remarkable SOC officer noticed two
things, one the victim had arthritis in his hands and two there were fresh scratches
on the arm of his chair. This is what happened.
The victim had a pistol unknown to anyone else and used it to commit suicide. His
crippled hands meant he could not hold the pistol normally so holding the but in
both hands he used the arm of the chair to pull the hammer back (apparently I am
not allowed to say Co*ck), hence the marks. Holding the pistol in both hands with
his thumb on the trigger he fired. The recoil flipped the pistol backwards and
deposited it on the mantelpiece. This was actually reproduced on three separate
occasions.
So whilst I agree that it is a possibility the killer took the body parts, we cannot say
that it definitely happened.
all the best
Bob Hinton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 08:28 pm | | Thankyou for that little story Bob, once again life proves to be stranger than fiction.
Now, how many fiction writers would dare to try include such an apparently 'ridiculous' scenario?.
You could hardly follow that with an......"elementary, my dear Watson".
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:50 am | | Hi, Bob:
The 1919 case that you mentioned sounds as if you may be talking about the Armstrong case in Hay-on-Wye. Am I right? Along with the gold star, I will take your autograph on your copy of your book when I see you in Bournemouth, if I may.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 02:13 pm | | Hopefully I will be able to make it to Bournemouth in September too but Bob , I'm afraid I can't ask you to sign my copy of ' From Hell ' - the dogs got hold of it and chewed it up ! However it is mostly intact. You are in good company however , they also chewed up Don Rumbelow's book too !
Simon ( very busy at the moment , hope to devote more time to the boards soon ! ) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Dear Jon,
I believe that the more bizarre an event can be planned the more successful it becomes! One seizes
the elemental of suprise...and its bloody difficult to prosecute sucessfully due to giggles
from the jury and the apparent bizarre nature of the chain of 'logical' events - witnesses get very confused, indeed.The perfect pantomime is perferable to the perfect robbery...Hollywood demands it! And, the judge has mercy on yer soul.
I have the only WRITTEN commendation by a judge who sentenced me to six years instead of life (x3)
An historic moment for criminalkind!
Judge ye not...
Rosemary |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 02:41 pm | | Hi, Simon:
Are you trying to tell us that all the Ripperologists are going to the dogs?
Chris |
|
|
|
|
