Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 04:30 pm |        |
Hello Ed,
I was undecided if including the polish flag or not.
The fact is that an enormous chunk of the land in Ukraine was owned at that time by polish landlords.
Of course, these landlords never went to their properties.
It was not only for the distance, but some of them had been literally chocked (?) to pieces by the Ukranians landlabourers.
So they sent there the only guys that could administrate the lands.
Not only they were able to do so, but they had their own social organization fitted to survive over there.
Of course they were as rough and tough as the descendants of Taras Bulba.
Polish Jews, Hassidic of course (but polish only till they lived in Poland).
I was interested in that because I wondered if Anderson could make the difference in all that.
I do not think so.
Neither Mc Carthy.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: all what it is stated above has not the pretention to be an expression of the truth.
It is only an opinion based on some scattered knowledge by the author. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 07:12 pm | |
Ed,
You are absolutely right,certain posters(including myself)have been absent in recent weeks.
I can now reveal that we have all been part of a huge conspiracy!
Joking aside Ed,what point are you trying to make regarding MJK's sleeve?
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 07:52 am | |
Mary was definitely moved around the bed by two people!
Someone that Mary was expecting to arrive at her door, knocked; she opened it wearing a white chemise and moccasin slippers. As Mary's guest( the man she was seen with earlier) entered the room, his accomplice also rushed in. Mary was restrained and then chloroformed but she managed to shout 'Oh murder'! Heard by her two near-neighbours.
Whilst Mary became unconscious, but remained alive, her killers threw the slumped body on to the top right-hand corner of the bed, and severed her throat. We can be sure she was killed here by examining the arterial blood spurts on the sheets and the wall behind. The doctors report is in full agreement.
Mary was then lifted down the bed by two people probably because it was a more convenient position to mutilate the corpse. However, as the legs were attacked a slipper remaining on the right foot was removed and tossed over to the table where much of her flesh had also been thrown.( it can be seen on the table) The other slipper probably fell off as they threw her onto the bed.
The raised area I mentioned on the sheet; named 'the crease' by Ivor Edwards is situated exactly where the crease of Mary's buttocks lay before she was lifted up the bed by her assailants. You will notice there are no drag marks in the lower sheet. (Notice the right breast lying just in front of the laceration on the inside of her right calf the laceration was made by an axe.)
The lacerations on her upper and lower left arm were inflicted whilst the arm was inside the sleeve, we know this because the cuts in her sleeving correlate with the lacerations below. You will also note that if her arm is hypothetically straightened the lacerations on the upper and lower arm all fall at exactly the same angle; indicating that the lacerations were made at the same time and whilst her arm was extended or straight.
Mary was then lifted up the bed and it was here that her left arm came out of the torn up sleeve and fell down by the side of the bed; marking the sheets. The lacerations on her upper arm, you will note have begun to disappear up under the the top of the sleeve. The higher lacerations can actually be seen under the transparent material of the gown. Mary's arm, which now dangled down the side of the bed was picked up by one of the killers and placed it over her abdomen.
To Be Cont ED. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 08:34 am | |
Hello Ed,
I was writing on the same subject on another board.
I think I beat you for the time (quite 8 minutes faster), but concerning the quality,
 , ,
I salute you, Master.
Bye. Graziano the dwarf. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 03:20 am | |
You will notice that the sleeve has been pushed up by the position of Mary's thigh-bone as she was lifted up the bed.(it was in this position because someone lifted her legs in much the same way he did Annie Chapman's) The chloroform was discarded in to the fire grate sometime after Mary had been rendered unconscious. Chloroform acts against alkaline metals the ensuing fire causing the metallic kettle to expand and then quickly contract was enough to loosen the handle and spout of the kettle. The expansion and contraction of the metal was enhanced because there was a hole in the glass in the window creating a through draft up the chimney.
By the way, the man who lifted Chapman's upper torso took her face from behind as she exited the house and entered the yard.( examine the reports on her facial bruising) Thus the muffled shout of 'No' heard by Cadosh.
Annie was quickly bundled behind the back-door by both men, the man who held the chloroform to her face was now forced against the back wall behind Annie, and this is why there was so little space between the wall behind Annie's head and the wall after he lay her down.ED |
Author: D L Lewis
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 08:59 am | |
Dear ED,
A nice little description, but I am a little lost as to where the crucifix fits in? Could you explain who your mystery terrorists are?
Thanks |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 11:34 am | |
Berner Street anarchists! I know the names!
ED |
Author: D L Lewis
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 07:38 pm | |
Dear ED,
Wow! Are you going to tell us?
Thanks |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 02:47 am | |
Jefe: Hey Guapo.
El Guapo: Yes Jefe.
Jefe: There are a lot of gringos who think they know who the killer is.
El Guapo: Jefe, would you say there are a plethora of gringos?
Jefe: Yes, El Guapo; there are a plethora of gringos.
El Guapo: Jefe, what's a plethora? |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:00 am | |
D L, have you noticed that those, like Joseph, who profess by the speak of extended and secret words; know and understand absoulutley nothing! ED.
Those people I challenge to argue with my thoughts! Unless there are many Ashling's that exist here? Where is she?
ED.
PS, I understand the difference betwixt the graphologist and the document examiner! And I know! ED.
By the way, my dog Gemma has a floppy right ear does any one have an idea what this might be? PS I don't trust the vet entirely as I'm not really sure that they are all really animal lovers. ED. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 11:29 am | |
Dear Ed,
A veterinary surgeon...failing that... a shochet in its sprocket?
Rosey Barkuhnin:-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:17 pm | |
Hi Ed,
It's a limp canine external organ of hearing on the right-hand side - that'll be £50 please.
Next!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:24 pm | |
'ear! 'ear, Caz!  |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 02:27 pm | |
Hello Mr. Carter,
It is impossible for anyone to argue with your thoughts. Joseph
Your thoughts are a reflection of your personal standards. Joseph
Objective claims are much easier to discuss. Joseph
Objective claims have a truth-value that is independent of what anyone may think, believe, or feel. Joseph
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your response to my post was angry and resentful. Joseph
Perhaps your pique is the result of a misreading. Joseph
If you would care to research something right here at the Casebook. Joseph
You would discover that I have been, and remain, a supporter of your JtR interpretations. Joseph
My post is a take off from the movie "Three Amigos". Joseph
Staring Martin Short, Steve Martin, and Chevy Chase. Joseph
It is a comedy, no profess by the speak of secret words there I assure you. Joseph
Quoting from a comedic movie implies humor. Joseph
You know humor Mr. Carter, you put your lips together and …………..smile. Joseph |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 05:39 pm | |
ED
Could you stop inserting 'ED' at the end of every paragraph?
Thanks |
Author: D L Lewis
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 01:01 am | |
Dear Ed,
Sorry about your dog - hope she's better soon.
Name your suspects (I challenge you :-P), and tell me more about the crucifix.
Your forensic analysis of MJK seems most reasonable - I'd certainly never looked at it that closely before, but could follow you. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 04:10 am | |
D L my observations are simply logical! Could a lone assailant pull Mary from the top right-hand corner of the bed to the position noted in the photograph, without either bunching the sheeting before her, or dragging that up behind? ED.
Mary Kelly was lifted by two men! There is no doubt!
My concern with these murders has always been why and how! Not who!
Joseph, calm down I meant no offence at all I wrote my name at the end of every paragraph because I thought a paragraph was a plethora! When in fact it is not!
By the way I really hate to hear the words used for money these days: Twenty-pence; thirty-Euro's.
What happened to a Half-Crown, the Shilling, six-pence or Half-Penny it actually sounded like money to me!
Caz, a cheque is in the post to the RSPCA, and what a relief my own vet had recently charged 200 sovereigns for exactly the same advice.
Rosemary, after receiving my last bill I have put a shochet into the vet! ED. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 04:14 am | |
| ED. However, I know who and I will explain to you! ED |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 04:46 am | |
| D L, think of fear left within our own local communities after know contemporary bombers have caused certain mayhem and murder! The local community naturally looks to blame someone! And the natural target in Whitechapel in 1888 was the East End Jews. ED. |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 07:24 am | |
Good Morning Mr. Carter, et al,
I 'm calm, and I'm still smilin', see. :-)
I admire your excellent forensic investigative efforts, and interpretations.
I am curious though Mr. Carter; will you be publishing the whole of your work in the future, ala David Radka, or will you continue to reveal it piecemeal?
I enjoy the story you're telling us, and I'm fascinated by the strength of the sequential logic you use to arrive at your conclusions. Bravo.
Can you "re-cap" the story up to this point; it would make it a lot easier for me, and perhaps other readers, to follow that way.
Perhaps you should have your own heading, as Mr. Radka, and another gentleman, {Robert Mulroney or Mulvaney or Malarkey? :-)} have for their theories.
Once again, Good Show Mr. Carter, keep on keepin' on.
Best Regards |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 10:09 am | |
Joseph, after Cross and Paul had discovered the body of Polly Nichol's lying in Bucks Row, Mr Cross made a statement in the 'Star'.
He said that 'Polly's dress had been pulled up onto her thighs, we tried to pull it down to cover her legs but it was as if it would not come down'.
We must ask ourselves that if no sexual abuse took place why was her dress up in the first place? And why would it not come down?
My reasoning is simple in that if two people carried Polly, the man lifting her legs would have had to raise the hem of her dress in order to grip Polly under her knees to lift the woman. On carrying her from the stable yard the long Victorian dress would have naturally fallen between her legs and on placing Polly down she could well have sat upon it.
Then I examined the supporting evidence and there is no doubt that two killer existed the evidence is over-whelming! |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 10:15 am | |
| To be cont ED. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 04:05 pm | |
Hello Mr. ED
Do you mean that from this statement:
'Polly's dress had been pulled up onto her thighs, we tried to pull it down to cover her legs but it was as if it would not come down'
You have created a scenario of two men carrying Polly to be the best solution to the perceived problem of someone being unable to pull her dress down?
These dresses were long, correct? and usually consisted of a considerable amount of material?
Are you suggesting that she was laid on all that material to the extent that her dress appeared tight and therefore the witness was unable to pull it down?
Would not the long dress trail on the sidewalk, if she was carried?
For the dress to be gathered underneath her rear, or back, the men carrying her would have to have been carrying her feet first, correct?, that is carrying her in a westerly direction (she was found with her head towards the east).
If they had been carrying her in an easterly direction, the dress would have trailed on the sidewalk in the direction of her feet and not gathered under her body.
Are you suggesting they carried her the full length (east to west) of Bucks Row?
Am I missing something here?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 05:13 pm | |
Jon have you not realized that the positioning of these bodies was essential.
Obsessive compulsive behavior:
Obsession is the thought; compulsion the act. One of the killers was obsessive enough in thought and subsequently compulsive enough to pick up Mary Kelly's arm and unthinkingly place it on her abdomen! He later became psychotic! ED. neurotics build castles in the air psychotics live in them and psychiatrists charge the rent ED. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 07:24 pm | |
To be honest ED, I did not realize the positioning of the bodies was essential, However, I have realized that the positioning of the bodies was purely in consequence of how they were murdered.
What happened to your tandem killers ?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 08:57 pm | |
I sympathise with you about vets Ed , you have to get the right one most definitely. When I first took my Jack Russell ( when he was a puppy ) to the vets , the vet obviously didn't like dogs and manhandled him very roughly ; he then had the cheek to tell me that my dog was a mongrel !!! ( when he is a proper longlegged JR ). That was the last time we went there.
Thankfully my mother was able to recommend a vet for us to go to , she takes her own dog there , and we have had no problems since.
What was this topic again ? |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 10:44 am | |
| Jon, the killer lifting Polly's lower torso first raised the dress in order to grip her under the knees, Polly was moved then laid down and then pulled back about six-inches because the killers realized that they could be seen from a nearby window. The backward movement was enough to drag Polly's bottom onto the material beneath her! Then her terrible mutilation took place between the lower buttons in her dress that were undone by the killers! There is much evidence to support this! Read what Spratling and Helson said; in detail. ED |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 02:28 pm | |
Jon, I began to explain this to Martin Fido some time ago-- Martin, as we know a very good writer-- but my explaination became a little side-tracked!
Next issue! I began to profile myself on the boards but could not send the photo for some reason. Could anyone help? ED |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 04:05 pm | |
Concerning the Whitechapel murders, I will site my own hero-anti-hero William Hazlitt(1778-1830).
John Lamb--the brother of Charles-- once knocked down Hazlitt, who was impertinent to him; and on those who were present infering and begging Hazlitt to shake hands and forgive him, Hazlitt said, well I don't care if I do. 'I am a metaphysician, and I do not mind a blow; nothing but an idea hurts me.' |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 04:14 pm | |
| 'Nothing but an idea hurts me'! What a wonderful turn of phrase! ED |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 05:39 pm | |
"Then her terrible mutilation took place between the lower buttons in her dress that were undone by the killers! There is much evidence to support this! Read what Spratling and Helson said; in detail. ED"
This is a typical response from Mr. Carter, this years nominee for the Edward Knight Larkins award. When asked to explain his bizarre theories he responds in one of two ways; either he attacks the person asking him a serious question, usually taking the tack that he knows and has studied far more than the questioner, or he says something like,"Read what Spratling and Helson said; in detail", thus offering absolutely no answer to the question asked.
What are we supposed to read? In what context are we to take this information? More importantly, what is it that Mr. Carter thinks that Spratling and Helson are telling him? Where do Spratling and/or Helson tell us that "the lower buttons in her dress that were undone by the killers" Since nowhere does this information exist, whether we read Spratling and Helson in detail or not, we have no way of telling.
Mr. Carter offers us a "chain of evidence" in which A+B+C+D=F A chain in which none of Mr. Carter's individual "facts" are able to stand on their own but when, in his own mind, taken together he believes that they mean something. In this case, Mr. Carter believes that: A) Polly Nichols was murdered by two, or more, men. Why? Because, B) Polly Nichols dress was hiked up around her upper thighs when she was found dead. This seems to indicate to him that her body was carried by said two, or more, men who, placing Nichols on the ground, caught her dress underneath her body. This is substantiated in his mind by, C) A quote offered in two of the most untrustworthy newspapers of the period, the Star and the Illustrated police News of 3 September 1888. What Charles Cross was talking about when he supposedly stated, "The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.", I for one do not know but to Mr. Carter's fecund mind he sees conspiracy.
If one were to point out to Mr. Carter that in spite of whatever Cross may or may not have said, the facts point to the likelihood that the killer merely lifted Polly Nichols clothing up in order to facilitate the mutilation of her stomach and genital area, Mr. Carter will counter with the statement that, D) "Then her terrible mutilation took place between the lower buttons in her dress that were undone by the killers! There is much evidence to support this!" Unfortunately for Mr. Carter there is no evidence to support this.
But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Carter to come out of the shadows and explain exactly what his sources and references are. While I merely have the official police documents to work with, perhaps Mr. Carter has some other sources that are not available to the rest of us. I am now asking Mr. Carter to come forth with all of his so called evidence and to show us, chapter and verse where he comes up with the information that, rather than pushing Polly Nichols skirts up while she was lying on the ground, Spratling and Helson have indicated that the murderer unbuttoned her dress. Can you answer that simple question Mr. Carter?
Wolf. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 12:46 am | |
Hello Mr. Vanderlinden,
I didn't know you had police documents. Does your collection include the original inquest transcripts?
Do these documents elaborate on the testimony of Inspectors Spratling and Holsen? I am interested in contrasting the official edition, with the Casebook version, and the different newspaper versions. Are you able to post those official editions on the boards?
I'm sure there are other readers that haven't seen them beside me, and I would be grateful for your trouble.
Best Regards |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 07:32 am | |
Hello Wolf,
I must join Joseph request unless you refer to all the documents contained in the "Ultimate".
But I also would like to add a question from a newbie: what evidence have we that the killer was acting alone, or at least on what serious ground could we state, as it has been already done, that it is not serious to consider more than one killer.
As far as I know the only thing that we are sure today is that there were some women butchered beyond the capacity to inflict the injuries to themselves and that of course it means that there was at least one killer.
But at least one killer does not mean necessarily only one killer.
In conclusion, even if it is fair to ask somebody who says :"there were two killers or more" to give the evidences to support such statement, why the same question should not be asked to someone who says :"the killer was acting alone" ?
Or have I missed something ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 07:55 am | |
Woolf, let me begin by stating my total surprise that you continue to read my posts, I though you earlier indicated they were so stupid they were not worth reading at all; but you continue to read them in detail!
I have to go to work now, I will get back asap! Woolf. ED. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 12:22 pm | |
Dear Graziano,
At some point long, long ago, a line was drawn in the sand. On one side was Jack the Ripper...while on the other side was Jack the RipperS.Take your pick! Superman...or The Three Amigos? (I remember
them as The Three Stooges :-)
Rosey :-) |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 12:48 pm | |
Hello Rosey,
am I wrong or of the three Stooges actors two were always the same while one was often changing ?
Well your choice could be much more realistic than what it seems.
I mean, for the Stooges but also for Superman.
Could it be that you have a well ascertained opinion ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 02:28 pm | |
Hello Ed,
In an earlier post you seemed puzzled as to why Wolf Vanderlinden continued to read your posts.
Surely all of us, irrespective of the topic being discussed,require a little comic relief from time to time.
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 02:31 pm | |
Hello David,
I think one of the most important questions anyone of our generation can ask is:
Could Mighty Mouse take Superman in a fight?
A few others might be: How could Lois Lane afford her expansive wardrobe? Was she sleeping her way to an editor's chair? Was she responsible for Mr. White seeing Great Caesar's ghost (As opposed to feeling the earth move)? 
How have you been enjoying your summer? Tell me a little more about your estate, where in Scotland are you located? I understand you hold classes there of some sort; what subject are they on?
Graziano,
Come stai? Di dove sei?
I am in total agreement with you. Mr. Carter has said, on a number of occasions, that his hypothesis is a product of scrutiny, and logical thinking, and so far, he has made a number of very useful contributions to this board, and perhaps to "Ripperology" in general.
His observations have stirred some very interesting debate, i.e. the Buck's Row house ID, and the location/orientation of Ms. Nichols body are two that come to mind immediately. I'm sure that with a little investigation of our own, we can find quite a few other instances where Edward Carter has led a spirited debate that has focused attention on a bit of nuance that most of us overlook or have taken for granted.
Another "gringo" with a hypothesis that may be worth debating someday soon is Mr. David Radka; who is preparing to release his long awaited "solution" any minute now.
In any event, your view that Mr. Vanderlinden is obliged to supply his evidence in opposition to Mr. Carter, echoes my perspective, and I'm sure that he will share the "official police version", that is pertinent to this discussion, with us as soon as he can.
Ciao |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 03:26 pm | |
Hello Mr. Lyden,
I seem to be missing something here. I can't understand why you feel it's necessary to humiliate Mr. Carter by referring to his hypothesis as "comic relief".
In that same breath, you also insinuate that the sum of his intelligence is far less then that of Mr. Vanderlinden's. Why is that Mr. Lyden?
Please explain to the readership why it is acceptable to be mean spirited and ill mannered to a fellow member of the Casebook, whose only transgression, from your point of view, is that he has made a few proposals based on a logic that perplexes you. Based on what I've read here lately, the tolerance level for that type of discourse has diminished.
Are you suggesting that the administration re-think their position in this matter?
The Whitechapel Murders are one of the premier enigmas of our time; they contain some of the most confounding combinations of luck, skill, and planning found in criminal history, yet a case of equal strength can be made that none of these attributes are applicable. Mr. Carter's hypotheses
is one of many perspectives that fall somewhere in between
these possibilities.
As an amateur, Mr. Carter has followed a disciplined course of investigation, and as a result, he has uncovered a number of interesting discrepancies that may have a bearing on the case. What have your investigations turned up?
Mr. Carter's hypotheses are based on an imaginative analysis of information from all sources, both contemporary to the crimes, and those perspectives written some time later.
I agree with Mr. Vanderlinden's opinion that some sources are more credible then others, but a good investigator doesn't throw anything away, there is always a kernel of truth in every lie.
Mr. Carter has done the legwork as well as the reading. His interpretations are honestly offered in a respectful manner to those who care to read them. If you find returning his courtesy an arduous task, you always have the option of skipping his byline.
Best regards |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 04:25 pm | |
Hi Graz.
You ask, "where's the evidence that the killer acted alone?".
Regardless of any official procedure, think of it this way.
When a person has been found to have died due to an act of murder, this automatically presumes that at least one other person was involved. Whether the act was perpetrated by more than one person must be either apparent in the evidence at the crime scene or be the result of proof due to further research.
If an acomplice is not evident at the crime scene and cannot be supported due to further investigation then this act of murder will be determined to have been committed by one (1) singular person.
In short, one (1) singular killer is implied by default, it needs no proof. The proof comes into play if you suggest MORE than one person was involved.
Regards, Jon |
