Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 22 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by The Station Cat 3 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by S.Brett 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (7 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (4 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-07-2017, 02:50 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

As for the pot calling the kettle black, we are not discussing what I say and do here - we are discussing what Gareth has said.
Except apparently, what Gareth has said that you so completely object to is that you have an agenda that clouds your arguments, and therefore your own words will have to be discussed in order to determine whether Gareth is in fact right.

Quote:
Your agenda is that all roads must lead to Lechmere, even to the extent of injecting him into unrelated threads so that you can go off on your hobby-horse again.

Thatīs a blatant lie, Iīm afraid. I have no such agenda. I have no agenda at all. I have a conviction, and it will show, inevitably. When I mention Lechmere, it is because I think he applies to the discussion, and he very often do so.
Whether YOU call that an agenda or whether YOU think that interjecting your suspect into every single thread is perfectly valid is irrelevant. The rules of the board disagree with you. It's called hijacking a thread by means of theory bias. So the rules of the board don't support your claim. Just because you think Lechmere is the be all and end all to everything doesn't mean he is. You have an agenda.

So basically, you just proved yourself wrong in your own argument?
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:01 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Ally: Except apparently, what Gareth has said that you so completely object to is that you have an agenda that clouds your arguments, and therefore your own words will have to be discussed in order to determine whether Gareth is in fact right.

Yes, whether I have an "agenda" or not and whether it clouds my judgement or not should be judged by what I say and nothing else.
To begin with, I donīt think it is fair to say that I have an agenda - it is not something that will always be present with somebody who has a suspect. I have a conviction. Those are not the same things.
When you have a suspect, you will be either right or wrong. If I am right about Lechmere, then I have a great advantage when it comes to seeing the value of an argument. If I am wrong about him, I have an equally great disadvantage.
That, however, has nothing at all to with the question whether I can think in an unbiased way.

The argument I and Gareth are having is based on different takes on the differences built into the Ripper and torso cases.

I say that we can only go on how the flaps from the abdomen were described as large flaps in both cases. Gareth says that the flaps MUST have been thin and narrow, since his dictionary implies this.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?

I say that all we can say is that uteri were cut out in both series. Gareth says that there were different reasons for it.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?

Supposedly, according to Gareth, if I had not been prejudiced by that agenda of mine, I would have been more likely to go along with what he thinks. But I would not. I do not want to overstretch the information that is there and start making interpretations that cannot be based in the facts. Nevertheless, it seems I am the one who allows my "agenda" to rule my thinking. I find that very wrong.

Whether YOU call that an agenda or whether YOU think that interjecting your suspect into every single thread is perfectly valid is irrelevant. The rules of the board disagree with you. It's called hijacking a thread by means of theory bias. So the rules of the board don't support your claim. Just because you think Lechmere is the be all and end all to everything doesn't mean he is. You have an agenda.

If something has a bearing on a thread, I donīt think it can possibly be hijacking it to bring it into the discussion. When I mention Lechmere in a thread that was not created to discuss him specifically, I do so because I find he has a bearing on the matter discussed. I am quite happy to demonstrate this if anybody can offer an example where they think I spoke about Lechmere with no connection at all to the thread topic.

Furthermore, I donīt think that Lechmere is the "all and end all" to everything - I think he was the Ripper. Those are two different things. Plus, of course, your saying that I interject my suspect into "every single thread" is demonstrably not true.

So basically, you just proved yourself wrong in your own argument?

I really donīt think so, no. I think that the notion that people with suspects should be regarded as less able to make viable calls is wrong, and I think I have made a very fair case for why I find that this is so. I trust I am allowed to make that stance.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-07-2017 at 04:05 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:26 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Again... and this is where your agenda clouds your thinking.... your opinion is irrelevant. You thinking that your suspect is relevant to every single topic on the subject of JTR is only because you think your suspect was JTR. It is literally no different than a Christian trying to tell you what Jesus thinks you ought to do or say on every subject under the sun because... Jesus. Or a Muslim, or any other fervent believer. Everybody thinks that their god is the one true god.

When you bring Lechmere up, on non-Lechmere threads, it's hijacking and it's against the rules. It doesn't matter that you really, really think it's relevant. You think it's relevant..because your suspect bias is clouding your thinking. Everyone else who doesn't fall to their knees and worship at the altar of Lechmere, has a different opinion and sees it as you attempting to force your "religion" down their throats. And that is why thread hijacking with suspect bias is against the rules. Because it's annoying to the non-believers.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:36 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,141
Default

Although this is a Vendetta thread Id like to chime in Fisherman. Far too often we see a cart before the horse usually based on little more than availability and a dysfunctional mind. I would hope that you would agree that any argument you might make here has an end game attached to it because youre trying to lead the evidence, not being led by it. That's why you often feel against the current, and frankly, defensive.

I happen to disagree with some basic premises you have about these murders, I have my own prejudice's too. But I do think when debating these ideas that you have to step back from a feeling of ownership and consider once again that in reality there is no evidence trail leading to anyone here.

Ive spoken with you, and with Gareth, for many years now. Back to around 2005 I believe. And I know civility is an important component in any conversation to both of you, and the rest of us.....my own past indiscretions left there for the moment , and for this point. No-one is, or should be, berating anyone else for whatever position they wish to defend, as long as the quality of the information being used is as close to impeccable as possible. Just recognize that any preconceived final line taints ones objectivity.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-07-2017, 05:13 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I say that we can only go on how the flaps from the abdomen were described as large flaps in both cases. Gareth says that the flaps MUST have been thin and narrow, since his dictionary implies this.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?
Or course you're interpreting in that instance, every much as I am, if not more so.

I've pointed out - correctly - that Hebbert uses the word "slips of flesh" and that the dictionary shows that "slips" is a synonym for "strips". I've also pointed out - correctly - that, whereas Hebbert describes two such slips being removed from the torso victim, there were three flaps of flesh removed from the abdomens of both Chapman and Kelly. I've also pointed out - again, correctly - that in the latter case the three flaps removed were so huge that they completely laid open Kelly's abdomen, which is evident from both Bond's report and the Miller's Court photographs. This was demonstrably not the case with Elizabeth Jackson.

My interpretation, therefore, is that the wounds described in the case of the torso victim were demonstrably lesser than those inflicted upon Mary Kelly. I'd submit that my interpretation is closer to the facts than your interpretation, which seeks to minimise the difference between the Ripper and Torso cases, and to "big-up" certain aspects of the latter so that they more closely resemble the Ripper murders than a dispassionate reading of the evidence permits.
Quote:
I say that all we can say is that uteri were cut out in both series. Gareth says that there were different reasons for it.

He "interprets", whereas I do not. Who of us allows our "agendas" to colour our respective takes?
No, again you're interpreting as much as I am, if not more so.

The reason I've suggested that there was a different reason at work in the case of Jackson is that she was carrying a baby, and the fact that the (two slips of) flesh that were cut from her abdomen might indicate that the killer's aim was to gain access to her gravid uterus so that the baby might be removed. That is an entirely reasonable "interpretation", which is fully congruent with the facts of the Jackson case.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear that her womb was removed at all but, even if it were, we can't escape the fact that her baby had been taken out and disposed of. This is another demonstrable difference between this (single) Torso murder and the Ripper series, for which the bland statement that "uteri were cut out in both series" would appear to be a generalisation designed to minimise the discrepancies to the extent that it might appear more likely that the same suspect was responsible for both.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:01 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Ally: Again... and this is where your agenda clouds your thinking....

It is of course comfortable to say that my agenda clouds my thinking. It gives you the edge - we have one poster with an unclouded mind and another one with a clouded one. This is the exact thing I am advicing against employing becuase it institutionalizes having a suspect as being equal to representing a less viable thinking. As I said, I donīt have an agenda. Agendas are what people who root for their own icecream have - they are trying to sell something, and they are willing to detract from the truth in order to do so.
That is not something I engage in. I am speaking for my suspect, yes, but NOT by falsifying or twisting things, but instead by going by the facts. That CAN be done, you know, even by people with suspects. I is not a given that they will be bad judges of facts and evidence. Actually, the exacat opposite can be the case, and indeed WILL be the case if they are right. I am not saying that I AM right - only pointing out the risibility of your reasoning.

...your opinion is irrelevant.

See what I mean? My opinion is irrelevant, because I supposedly have such a clouded judgment that I am unfit to plead.
That is the whole crux of the matter, Ally. That is a preconception if ever I saw one.

You thinking that your suspect is relevant to every single topic on the subject of JTR is only because you think your suspect was JTR.

Once again, I have not said and do not think that Lechmere is relevant to "every single topic" just as I do not interject him into "every single thread". I think he applies to many discussions and I welcome anybody to point to where I brought him up with no relevance at all. It would be a lot better way to go about proving your point - if it can be proven at all.

It is literally no different than a Christian trying to tell you what Jesus thinks you ought to do or say on every subject under the sun because... Jesus. Or a Muslim, or any other fervent believer. Everybody thinks that their god is the one true god.

Once again, this is more of the same thing I am warning against. Making the call that Lechmere is a very good suspect and probably the Ripper is not equivalent to putting on sandals and a robe, and carrying a plaquer on your chest. And once again, I advice very much against making these kinds of comparisons. They do not belong to a sensible discussion, as far as I am concerned.

When you bring Lechmere up, on non-Lechmere threads, it's hijacking and it's against the rules.

Does the same apply to any other suspect? Is it off limits to speak of Kosminski when somebody discusses mental incapacity on behalf of Hyams? Is it irrelevant or relevant to make the comparsion with Kosminski in such a case? The question "who decides when it is warranted to bring a suspect up on a thread" is easy enough to answer - that right belongs to the administrators of the boards. But how is it implemented? If I am not fir to make the call myself, who makes it for me? Or do we work from the assumption that I have too clouded a mind to make any such call at all, therefore always ruling that no matter the subject of the thread, if it was not specifically started to discuss Lechmere, he cannot be brought up?

If thatīs the case, imagine a thread called "With permission to kill", aiming at a discussion about what kind of people had a reason to be out and about at around 3-4 AM in the mornings. In that case, Lechmere would make for a very useful example. But ...no?

I need to know how you reason here and why, if it is possible to come by such information. You see, far from being a hijacking agendapusher, I see myself as contributing tio the information on the boards.

It doesn't matter that you really, really think it's relevant. You think it's relevant..because your suspect bias is clouding your thinking.

Thatīs a very circular reasoning. It equals the kind of verdict doctors give patient with no insight about their diseases. and once again, it is not a sound approach, since I am very much aware of the facts of the case, and where Lechmere fits these facts, just as I am aware of where the weaker points of the theory can be found. I have no problems at all to recogninze these things, and my judgment is not clouded in any way. I could of course offer to demonstrate this by allowing you to pich any example of such clouding you wish to and then show you why there is no clouding around, but that only becomes a useful exercise if you can bring yourself to accepting the possibility that I AM unclouded.
As long as you will never admit that and always work from the assumption that I am more of a religious looney than a Ripperologist, that is not going to happen though is it? All I can do is to once more say that this is the exact thing I am warning against: institutionalized condemnation of people with suspects.

Everyone else who doesn't fall to their knees and worship at the altar of Lechmere, has a different opinion and sees it as you attempting to force your "religion" down their throats.

How does that differ from them ramming THEIR versions down MY throat? I am not asking anybody to fall on their knees at all, and there is no altar to worship at - those are just the props of the idea that I would be a religious looney, something I would prefer very much not to be subjected to.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:14 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Or course you're interpreting in that instance, every much as I am, if not more so.

I've pointed out - correctly - that Hebbert uses the word "slips of flesh" and that the dictionary shows that "slips" is a synonym for "strips". I've also pointed out - correctly - that, whereas Hebbert describes two such slips being removed from the torso victim, there were three flaps of flesh removed from the abdomens of both Chapman and Kelly. I've also pointed out - again, correctly - that in the latter case the three flaps removed were so huge that they completely laid open Kelly's abdomen, which is evident from both Bond's report and the Miller's Court photographs. This was demonstrably not the case with Elizabeth Jackson.

My interpretation, therefore, is that the wounds described in the case of the torso victim were demonstrably lesser than those inflicted upon Mary Kelly. I'd submit that my interpretation is closer to the facts than your interpretation, which seeks to minimise the difference between the Ripper and Torso cases, and to "big-up" certain aspects of the latter so that they more closely resemble the Ripper murders than a dispassionate reading of the evidence permits.No, again you're interpreting as much as I am, if not more so.

The reason I've suggested that there was a different reason at work in the case of Jackson is that she was carrying a baby, and the fact that the (two slips of) flesh that were cut from her abdomen might indicate that the killer's aim was to gain access to her gravid uterus so that the baby might be removed. That is an entirely reasonable "interpretation", which is fully congruent with the facts of the Jackson case.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear that her womb was removed at all but, even if it were, we can't escape the fact that her baby had been taken out and disposed of. This is another demonstrable difference between this (single) Torso murder and the Ripper series, for which the bland statement that "uteri were cut out in both series" would appear to be a generalisation designed to minimise the discrepancies to the extent that it might appear more likely that the same suspect was responsible for both.
I am going to interject here and say that the hysterectomies performed on both Chapman and Eddowes were performed in two different ways using two different methods. This is a medical fact and is irrefutable, and is confirmed by a modern day consultant gynaecologist.

So what can be deduced from that ?

1. Two different persons, none being the killer removed the organs from the
two victims?

2. Two different killers, both removing organs independent of each other?

3. One killer who was a medical expert in female anatomy?

4. If one killer can we eliminate a butcher or slaughter-man, If they had any
knowledge what chance is there that there were able to remove the uteri
from both in two different ways.

To my mind this throws a whole new light on the murders and the removal of the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:19 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Sam Flynn: Or course you're interpreting in that instance, every much as I am, if not more so.

No, I am not. The material at hand said that the abdomens were cut away in large flaps, and a number of posters, including Debra and Gary have shown you exactly how they perceive these flaps looked. They were of irregular shape - as was stated - they were large - as was stated - and they were narrow along parts of the flaps - allowing for the term "slips".
I actually donīt postulate that they MUST have looked like this. I say that they were described as large in BOTH the Jackson case and the Kelly case, and I leave it there. No interpretation at all is made by me, and no agenda at all is introduced by me.

You, on the other hand, deny that they could have been anything at all but narrow slips. That is where and how we differ. I make no call, you make a call.

You interpret. I donīt.

The reason I've suggested that there was a different reason at work in the case of Jackson is that she was carrying a baby, and the fact that the (two slips of) flesh that were cut from her abdomen might indicate that the killer's aim was to gain access to her gravid uterus so that the baby might be removed. That is an entirely reasonable "interpretation", which is fully congruent with the facts of the Jackson case.

Yes, it is an interpretation - or suggestion - that can be made. But that is not the matter here. The matter is that you DO make an interpretation, whereas I donīt.

Both Chapman and Jackson had their uteri cut out from their abdomens. That is a fact. It is the raw, the naked fact. It is the unprocessed, uninterpreted fact.

It is not until we start to introduce musings and ideas of our own that the waters are getting murky.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear that her womb was removed at all but, even if it were, we can't escape the fact that her baby had been taken out and disposed of.

How is it not clear that her womb was removed at all? It was found inside the abdominal flaps of her belly, floating down the Thames along with the placenta and chord. Did these pieces pack themselves up or were they cut out and removed? Did they accientally fall out of her?

This is another demonstrable difference between this (single) Torso murder and the Ripper series, for which the bland statement that "uteri were cut out in both series" would appear to be a generalisation designed to minimise the discrepancies to the extent that it might appear more likely that the same suspect was responsible for both.

No, Gareth, it does not work in that direction. Presenting the raw, established facts can never be an attempt to twist the evidence. it is when we take it upon ourselves to present more or less clever interpretations that we put ourselves at risk, and hugely so in this case.
The idea that the reproductive organs may not have been cut out from Jackson should never be entertained, since it defies any logic. But there is luckily a notation from Hebbert that dispells the idea: "The cord measured 8 in., and the distal ends showed a clean cut".

Cut out, therefore.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:38 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Although this is a Vendetta thread Id like to chime in Fisherman. Far too often we see a cart before the horse usually based on little more than availability and a dysfunctional mind. I would hope that you would agree that any argument you might make here has an end game attached to it because youre trying to lead the evidence, not being led by it. That's why you often feel against the current, and frankly, defensive.

I happen to disagree with some basic premises you have about these murders, I have my own prejudice's too. But I do think when debating these ideas that you have to step back from a feeling of ownership and consider once again that in reality there is no evidence trail leading to anyone here.

Ive spoken with you, and with Gareth, for many years now. Back to around 2005 I believe. And I know civility is an important component in any conversation to both of you, and the rest of us.....my own past indiscretions left there for the moment , and for this point. No-one is, or should be, berating anyone else for whatever position they wish to defend, as long as the quality of the information being used is as close to impeccable as possible. Just recognize that any preconceived final line taints ones objectivity.
I try to see if the evidence dovetails with Lechmere. That is not the same as leading the evidence. The chronology of the matter is one that I cannot do much about - whatever matter surfaces, I take a look at it and I see if it dovetails. I can promise you that anybody with a suspect does the same thing, and there is nothng wrong with it. Itīs the way the police works too. Once they suspect somebody, they look at how the evidence relates to that somebody.

Admittedly, if they are wrong and lock themselves to somebody, they are at risk. But I am aware of this, Michael! And I do look at all alternatives. If something should crop up that dispells the theory, I will accept that and move on. But as long as there is no such thing, and as long as there is a lot of circumstantial evidence speaking for him as the killer, I will go on doing it my way.

I would like to add, as I have done before, that I am many times actively choosing a report over another when it - SHAME ON ME! - fits with Lechmere as the killer. This is because I realize that if the sources had all unanimously given away Lechmere as the Ripper, then we would not still be looking for the killer.
I believe that if we can suss out who the killer was with the help of the sources, then the truth will be so very well hidden so as to be nearly invisible. And overlooked passages (like the Mizen scam) and fringe sources may hold the conclusive puzzle bits.
It is a perilous path to wander, but if the bits and pieces can form a walkable path, then itīs worth the effort.
One example is how I rely on the Morning Advertiser telling us that the blood was still running from Nichols and appeared fresh when Mizen saw her. Other papers seem to contradict this, implying that Mizen was talking about the point in time when the body was lifted onto the ambulance, and these sources outnumber the one I use. The thing is, these bits and pieces are every bit as relevant as the others, and together they DO form that path. This means that Lechmere does dovetail with the evidence - when chosen, or cherrypicked, or however you want to phrase it.

We either pursue this path, or we say that it is an impossible one, given how singular sources are sometimes favoured over multiple contradicting ones.

The all-important matter of this, as regards the ongoing discussion on this thread, is that I am fully and very much aware of ALL the sources, I am aware of the numbers of them and what they say, respectively. My mind is in no way clouded, but instead very much focused on looking at whether Lechmere is a possibility that finds support in the sources or not.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:40 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I am going to interject here and say that the hysterectomies performed on both Chapman and Eddowes were performed in two different ways using two different methods. This is a medical fact and is irrefutable, and is confirmed by a modern day consultant gynaecologist.

So what can be deduced from that ?

1. Two different persons, none being the killer removed the organs from the
two victims?

2. Two different killers, both removing organs independent of each other?

3. One killer who was a medical expert in female anatomy?

4. If one killer can we eliminate a butcher or slaughter-man, If they had any
knowledge what chance is there that there were able to remove the uteri
from both in two different ways.

To my mind this throws a whole new light on the murders and the removal of the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
The faces of Eddowes and Kelly were also cut in different ways, Trevor.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.