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:
Maybrick, James: Anne Graham Interview - October 1995 - by David Orsam 18 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - by Sam Flynn 36 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: A Very Inky Question - by Sam Flynn 45 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: A Very Inky Question - by David Orsam 51 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by David Orsam 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by David Orsam 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (16 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (15 posts)
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (7 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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 > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3551  
Old 04-26-2018, 04:16 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Youre a bit like the Vice-President then Abby
Lol. Basically
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message
  #3552  
Old 04-26-2018, 06:37 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,734
Default

The twisting and misrepresentation is taking a statement of Hebbert that speculates a ring was forcibly removed and turning it into a statement of fact.
Stating as fact that rings were stolen from victims,without producing evidence rings were there to be stolen.Introducing the element of theft of material belongings when no such evidence exists.Using the word murderer when murder cannot be proven.I suppose now fisherman,you will argue you never used the word theft.
You don't have to,but theft is implied in any mention you make concerning the rings.They were stolen according to your claims.The killers of Jackson and Chapman were thieves if we are to believe you.
Your theory is like you.TWISTED and HYSTERICAL.
Quick reply to this message
  #3553  
Old 04-27-2018, 12:14 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The twisting and misrepresentation is taking a statement of Hebbert that speculates a ring was forcibly removed and turning it into a statement of fact.
Stating as fact that rings were stolen from victims,without producing evidence rings were there to be stolen.Introducing the element of theft of material belongings when no such evidence exists.Using the word murderer when murder cannot be proven.I suppose now fisherman,you will argue you never used the word theft.
You don't have to,but theft is implied in any mention you make concerning the rings.They were stolen according to your claims.The killers of Jackson and Chapman were thieves if we are to believe you.
Your theory is like you.TWISTED and HYSTERICAL.
Harry

A good post, you have hit the nail firmly on the head. What are possibly simple and obvious explanations to these torsos, are being totally ignored in favour of misguided beliefs about murder, dismemberment and the opening of abdomens.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #3554  
Old 04-27-2018, 12:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The twisting and misrepresentation is taking a statement of Hebbert that speculates a ring was forcibly removed and turning it into a statement of fact.
Stating as fact that rings were stolen from victims,without producing evidence rings were there to be stolen.Introducing the element of theft of material belongings when no such evidence exists.Using the word murderer when murder cannot be proven.I suppose now fisherman,you will argue you never used the word theft.
You don't have to,but theft is implied in any mention you make concerning the rings.They were stolen according to your claims.The killers of Jackson and Chapman were thieves if we are to believe you.
Your theory is like you.TWISTED and HYSTERICAL.
Writing "hysterical" in capital letters is never a good idea, Harry.

People say that a single killer cut Kelly to pieces.

Maybe that is not the truth. Maybe it was a schoolclass from Banbury that did it. We donīt know. So claiming that it was a single killer seems pretty hysterical and twisting to me, going by your definition.

Jackson was in the habit of wearing a brass ring. Chapman was in the habit of wearing brass rings. Neither woman had the rings on their fingers when their remains were found. There were abrasions and bruises, consistent with the the rings having been wrenched off the fingers in both cases, and the police accordingly concluded that they had most likely been taken by the killer.

Of course, it could instead have been the Banbury schoolclass who done it. But it is a very good guess that it was not.

What remains are two things:

1. We accept more as truth than has been conclusively proven, and we do that on account of how it is by far the most logical thing. It was probably a single killer and not a schoolclass from Banbury who did for Kelly. It is historically accepted that she was killed by a single killer.

2. We are not allowed to call it twisting when somebody works along these logical lines. We may point out that there can be no absolute certainty that the rings were stolen from the fingers of the victims, but calling it twisting to work from the accepted assumption that they were is uncacceptable. If you do that, you need to call all of the history written about these cases twisting, more or less.

In the end, itīs all about a decency type that is oddly referred to as "common" although it is not common at all. You, for example, are not in possesion of it. So in essence, calling it common decency is twisting, I take it.

Now, go away, Harry.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-27-2018 at 12:31 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3555  
Old 04-27-2018, 12:34 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Harry

A good post, you have hit the nail firmly on the head. What are possibly simple and obvious explanations to these torsos, are being totally ignored in favour of misguided beliefs about murder, dismemberment and the opening of abdomens.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
From my post to Harry, it should be obvious that I think that following the historically accepted version can never be called twisting, Trevor.

Doing it the other way around, though...

Iīm almost sure you can see what I mean.

Can I ask you a small favour? If you ever should agree with me about something relating to these cases, can you please not let everybody know?
Quick reply to this message
  #3556  
Old 04-27-2018, 12:57 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
From my post to Harry, it should be obvious that I think that following the historically accepted version can never be called twisting, Trevor.

Doing it the other way around, though...

Iīm almost sure you can see what I mean.

Can I ask you a small favour? If you ever should agree with me about something relating to these cases, can you please not let everybody know?
We are never likely to agree, you have created a fantasy in your own mind, and as has been seen no matter what is put before you to negate that fantasy you are never going to accept that you could be wrong, and that there is a more simple explanation.

You continually choose to ignore and dismiss Dr Biggs comments with regards to similarities, which you seek to rely on to prove a signature as part of your misguided theory.

You and others on here should stop trying to be medical experts by giving you own medical opinions. You were not there at the time, there are no photographs of the bodies, so what has been said back then by the doctors is nothing more than opinion, and as has been pointed out modern day medical knowledge has shown that many of those opinions now do not stand up to close scrutiny.

As I have said there are other simple and obvious explanations for these torsos.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #3557  
Old 04-27-2018, 01:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
We are never likely to agree, you have created a fantasy in your own mind, and as has been seen no matter what is put before you to negate that fantasy you are never going to accept that you could be wrong, and that there is a more simple explanation.

You continually choose to ignore and dismiss Dr Biggs comments with regards to similarities, which you seek to rely on to prove a signature as part of your misguided theory.

You and others on here should stop trying to be medical experts by giving you own medical opinions. You were not there at the time, there are no photographs of the bodies, so what has been said back then by the doctors is nothing more than opinion, and as has been pointed out modern day medical knowledge has shown that many of those opinions now do not stand up to close scrutiny.

As I have said there are other simple and obvious explanations for these torsos.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Trevor, thanks for the reassuring words about how we will likely never agree!

As for Biggs and his work, I fear that you do not understand him OR me to the full, so itīs probably best left lying. You seem to think that I do not hold Biggs high in regard, and thatīs wrong. I think he is quite knowledgeable and my understanding is that he knows what he is talking about.

The problem seems to be that you donīt.
Quick reply to this message
  #3558  
Old 04-27-2018, 02:14 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,734
Default

Fisherman,
What police sources? More misrepresentation.There were none as regarding theft of rings from the bodies,simply because there were no witnesses reported as being in the company of victims at death.Nor were police themselves witnesses.
The habits you write of,being in the past,are just that ,habits of the victims past.Useless in PROVING the situation prevailing at time of death.
Why the reference to Kelly?Did she have rings stolen too?Did any of the other victims? One could speculate they too,at one time,had a habit of wearing rings.It proves nothing.
If you want to be logical,then stick to realities.Stop as Trevor remarks,from indulging in fantasies.
By the way,what school in Banbury?
Quick reply to this message
  #3559  
Old 04-27-2018, 02:31 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Hereīs a healthy exercise!

On a Swedish website, I found a guy asking "Now that theyīve apprehended the Golden State killer, is it not time to say that he is probably the Zodiac too? Two serial killers in roughly the same area, both of them looking fairly alike on police sketches, both using a gun - I mean, what are the odds?"

Heīs got a fair point - the odds are in favour of a similar identity. On account of the similarities.

But! In THESE two cases - and this oneīs for Herlock - the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities!

The Zodiac case played out in 1968-69. Joseph James DeAngelo was born in 45, making him 23-24 years old in 68-69, so he fits the bill in that respect.

But what tells the cases apart is that DeAngelo was driven by an urge to have sex forced out of his victims, whereas the Zodiac never engaged in sexual activity with his. DeAngelo was always in close physical contact with his victims, whereas the Zodiac seemingly avoided this to a major degree.

To me, that very clearly speaks for two killers. The time does not overlap, but is consistent with the idea of one killer, the area allows for it with ease and to a degree, both killers shared the gun aspect. But on closer inspection, it seems that DeAngelo may have used a gun only in situations where he needed to act quickly. The police reasoned that one of the male victims may have freed himself of the shoelaces he was bound with and lunged at DeAngelo, and on another occasion, a couple that was shot seems to have come upon DeAngelo as he was trying to enter a house he had staked out.

So here, we can see a clear difference in relation to how the victims were approached and what was the reason for the attacks, and taken together, it points to two very different mindsets.

In "our" cases, the exact opposite applies. The cases as such both involve mutilation and organ taking, something that is incredibly much rarer that sexual assaults and/or shootings, so that alone tells us that we are dealing with a high level of credibility of just the one killer.
And then we know that there are lots and lots of similarities that seem to be of a signature character, the opening of the abdomen, the taking out of organs and taking away of the abdominal wall etcetera.

The dismemberments may be about getting damning evidence out of a bolthole tied to the killer, a problem the Ripper cases didnīt have to deal with (personally, I think that the dismemberments were also about satisfying the killer, but that is another discussion).

This is how different suggestions of a shared identity are sometimes virtually baseless, while at other times they are instead almost certain to be correct.

But the guy from the Swedish website go it right from the beginning: It MUST be suggested that a common identity may have existed when two serial killing cases are so close in time and space. Once we look closer at the details, however, we can easily see that the suggestion does not hold much water in the EAR/ONS-Zodiac comparison.

But for Herlocks sake, Iīm glad I found it!

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-27-2018 at 02:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3560  
Old 04-27-2018, 02:33 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Fisherman,
What police sources? More misrepresentation.There were none as regarding theft of rings from the bodies,simply because there were no witnesses reported as being in the company of victims at death.Nor were police themselves witnesses.
The habits you write of,being in the past,are just that ,habits of the victims past.Useless in PROVING the situation prevailing at time of death.
Why the reference to Kelly?Did she have rings stolen too?Did any of the other victims? One could speculate they too,at one time,had a habit of wearing rings.It proves nothing.
If you want to be logical,then stick to realities.Stop as Trevor remarks,from indulging in fantasies.
By the way,what school in Banbury?
I thought I had already told you two things:

1. There is nobody saying it is a proven case that the rings were taken by the killer - it is only a historically accepted thing, and something that cannot be called twisting unless you have a twisted agenda.

2. Go away.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


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 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.