Sunday, 18 July 1999 - 08:46 pm
Wolf.
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 08:17 am
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 08:36 am
Biology classes I followed with interest in high school did not suffice for me, to have a clear image about it. So an illiterate, without at least anatomical lessons in the human body and some biopsy practices on the reproduction organs, would still be searching when a beat cop put the cuffs on him.
Jill
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 09:44 pm
I am changing my mind about the competence of the police looking for Jack as a result of the cauterization theory. I used to be a convinced Beggian on this point, but I'm less so now (Begg essentially holds that the police were competent in their duties respecting the case.)
I think the police blew a golden opportunity to identify the murderer following Miller's Court. They should have deduced by the strangeness of the fire (using clothing for fuel), the non-use of the candle for light, the melted teapot handle, the massive mutilations on Kelly, and the defense wounds on her hands, that the murderer likely cauterized himself at the scene of the crime to prevent sepsis. They could have put out bulletins (similar to the famous paste-up placards they had used before asking for help from the public) and press releases asking anyone noticing someone with new burns or new bandages on their hands, face or arms to report to the police. The murderer wouldn't be able to hide his cauterizations from people who actively looked for them, and he would be caught. This seems so simple to me, I can't imagine how the police could look past it.
The murderer must have REALLY lost all respect for the police after this one. If he didn't die of septicemia, I can't imagine why he wouldn't kill again, given the clear implication of the dunderheadedness of the police. Maybe he didn't want to push his luck with the scars being deduced back to Miller's Court upon a later arrest--?? What do y'all think?
David
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 08:23 am
How justifiable does it sound to critisize the Police based soley on this idea, theory, whim, or call it whatever you will.
A bit shallow of you Dave.
We might prove the validity of something first, before 'we' jump to conclusions.
Could it possibly be that this cauterization actually never happened ??...did you think of that?
Regards, Jon
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 11:02 am
Does he realise the sheer volume of people injured in those days, when safety at work was not even heard of? There would have been hundreds of people about with burns, cuts, and other wounds, does he think they should have all been arrested?
In certain cases where the wounds were accompanied by suspicious behavior the persons were arrested, such as the suspect Piggott. Really Mr Radka, do you think that you could bring some common sense to bear on this, rather than such fanciful thoughts as you seem to entertain?
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 08:33 pm
What kind of crap are you two trying to hand the people who post these boards? The baloney that anyone who advances an idea you don't like is a shallow person? A person who lets his imagination run wild? Do either of you two clowns even know who you're talking to? Do you know me, ever met me, know how I've lived my life and what I've done?
If you think my idea of identifying the murder through signs of cauterization on his person is not a good one, kindly say why you think so in an objective way.
David
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 01:08 am
Please no more fighting..it just brings everything down and then other people get involved and before you know it, everybody has forgotten why they are even in here for..to discuss if it was POSSIBLE for Jack the Ripper to have contracted blood poisoning...
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 03:38 am
It is not the idea that is crazy, any and all idea's are welcome, as everybody knows. It is your condemnation of the Police, based on what you perceive as 'an obvious solution'...you write:
'I am changing my mind about the competence of the police looking for Jack as a result of the cauterization theory. I used to be a convinced Beggian on this point, but I'm less so now (Begg essentially holds that the police were competent in their duties respecting the case.)'
For all our differences, Paul and I (and others) do at least aknowledge that the Police were doing there best with what they had. They were the best in the world at the time, given the technology and the inexperience with dealing with this type of killer.
Then you continue:
'I think the police blew a golden opportunity to identify the murderer following Miller's Court. They should have deduced by the strangeness of the fire (using clothing for fuel), the non-use of the candle for light, the melted teapot handle, the massive mutilations on Kelly, and the defense wounds on her hands, that the murderer likely cauterized himself at the scene of the crime to prevent sepsis.'
David, that is a major leap of faith to critisize & condem the authorities, based on nothing more than an idea, you must pursue the line of thought and find out how practicle it might have been. Research the subject, find out how many individuals you might be dealing with, then once confirmed you have reason to point a finger at the Police.
Then you conclude:
'This seems so simple to me, I can't imagine how the police could look past it.'
That statement betray's the inner thinking of someone who has not thought a theory through.
David....My comment was aimed at you being quick to scold the authorties for being incompetant, I suggested it was shallow of you to do that.
There were no personnal insults involved, so calm down. Lets put a little more thought and research into the subject before we jump up half cocked and shooting from the hip....
Regards, Jon
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 05:05 am
Edana
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 01:49 pm
This is indeed a fascinating discussion, which I have been reading with much interest.
My question is this:
Jack had no regard for his victims' lives, but did he actually enjoy inflicting pain? There is not much evidence for this. Moving one step further, would he therefore have been like a typical scaredy-cat male when it came to his own pain? In other words, medical man or no, would he have had the nerve and courage to cauterise himself even if he thought his self-preservation might be at stake?
I get the feeling this serial killer was not into S or M, and along with wanting to despatch his victims as quickly and painlessly as poss might come his own fear of pain. I think he may have proved to be a complete wimp if he'd cut himself, even to the point of hypochondria (don't panic, guys, I'm not suggesting bloody Maybrick!). If I'm right he would not have been able to face self-cauterisation when push came to shove.
Maybe he wore gloves and never got cut at all. Wouldn't that have been the sensible option, being intelligent and medically-minded, and knowing he would be up to his arms in blood and guts?
Good theories guys, but more work needed to convince this one.
Love,
Caz
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 06:54 pm
David
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 01:55 am
Jack: A male serial killer who MAY have been a scaredy-cat.
Victims: Innocent women.
Please get this whole thing into some sort of perspective dear. I am not having a go at men in general (or do you somehow keep relating yourself to the kind of man Jack was? :-))
Love,
Caz
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 06:31 am
As to self inflicted pain, what about men who go into war and receive battle wounds rather than run away? Of course, to be honest, I really couldn't see our Jack as a model soldier.
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 11:02 am
Men who are wounded in battle have no great love of pain I can assure you.
Running away is not an option.
Perhaps you should consider another example.
Best Regards
Joseph
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 07:23 pm
Yeah Joseph, The army and other forces made running away an option punishable by death. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it, ie: " Go over there and get shot at young man, if you don't, we'll shoot you."
Sorry about the interuption.
Jules
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 06:14 am
I see our Jack as a spoilt product of a comparatively comfortable middle-class Victorian family, who happened to have enough time on his grubby little hands to plan and execute (sorry!) as many murders as his cold heart desired. No fear of his being sent off to war (except perhaps to try to entertain the troops with smug tales of his not-so derring do). But I have to agree with Diana about him not having the wherewithal to make a model soldier. Certainly not the 'very model of a modern major general' anyway. He still strikes me as being an inadequate squirt of a man with ideas above his station. So where did he get his incredible gift of getting away with murder?
Sorry for going off-topic. Think of it as musak while we await further evidence of possible blood-poisoning. I'd love to think that Jack got his comeuppance by his own hand, but sadly I really can't see it.
Love,
Caz
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 01:21 pm
He lives in the shadows,
and stalkes through the night.
No woman is safe,
lest they stay in the light.
With stealth he'll approach,
then a flash of cold steel.
It's too late for another,
not a cry......not a squeal.
As Jack slips away,
through streets barely lit.
He starts to feel pain,
..."I've cut myself......sh*t!!"
With dirt in the wound,
let infection begin.
....Silly son of a bi*ch,
just did himself in.!!!
:-)
Jon, having a slow day.
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 04:20 pm
Bloody good stuff Jon. Whenever I try to write poetry I can't get past "There once was a girl called......."
Jules
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 08:09 pm
I just had a thought, (stop laughing) has anyone checked out whether anyone was admitted to hospital for blood poisoning around Jacks time. I've got some old stats and stuff buried somewhere in my bedroom about causes of death but I don't have any hospital reports. Maybe this is a place to start looking.
Hey, I just realised something. Everyone's being nice to each other. Have I got the right website? Do I drink beer? Have I just had the most fantastic week ever? Am I raving? Do I need to keep taking those pills?
Sorry.
Jules