Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

James, the Dog Killer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by jason_c View Post
    Am I the only one underwhelmed by this? We have an allegation against Maybrick which was investigated and found untrue...

    Assuming it is true. There does appear to be a reason behind the killings. This is not an example of a man getting his kicks from torturing and murdering animals.
    Only the local newspaper concluded it was untrue. The reporter based his conclusion on the distance between the residences, which was considerable, and the fact there were other dogs in between, thereby eliminating the motive but, in my opinion, not the possibility of guilt.

    Comment


    • #32
      A circumstantial case is being built here. I agree it's only circumstantial.

      But does it make sense to question a circumstantial argument by saying it's circumstantial?

      Then there is the problem of having to follow the logic of someone else's theory of how lucky a hoaxer can be and what makes something so circumstantial it's irrelevant and should be chalked up to luck and inevitability.

      http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.c...er-murder.html

      My conclusion is the 'help' that incidents of violence provides a 'candidacy' depends on whom or what the violence is directed toward.

      Comment


      • #33
        G'day Pat

        Originally posted by Paddy View Post
        My thoughts are that Mrs Maybrick framed James in revenge for being blamed for his death.
        I once had the same thought, but where I became stuck was

        "When did she frame him?"
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by MayBea View Post
          My understanding of Old Hoax theory, circa 1889, is that the Old Hoaxer knew James or was familiar with the Maybrick household, and had access to Battlecrease if the Diary came out of there decades later.
          Hi MayBea,

          There is no 'official' old hoax theory, nor indeed just the one. We are all free to speculate how an older hoax (or older document if you prefer) might work, in terms of possible dates (ranging from c.1889 to c.1989); motivation; inside knowledge and so on. All we can really say is that someone had the idea to compose the thoughts of James Maybrick/Jack the Ripper - someone who was arguably familiar enough with both subjects to believe they could make a decent fist of it.

          The modern hoax theory is more limited - chiefly by the fact that Mike Barrett would have to be knowingly involved in some capacity, despite everything pointing to him not knowing any more than the rest of us who wrote it, when or why.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jason_c View Post
            Am I the only one underwhelmed by this?

            Cats, dogs, kittens, and puppies were killed daily by thousands of individuals who did not give the act a second thought. And neither did society condemn them for it. I suspect the only reason this story made the newspaper at the time was the offence against private property(the dogs) not because of its callousness or horror at the act.
            To Jason

            I take you're points about cats, dogs etc were killed regularly and know one gave it a second thought. However had Maybrick butchered one of these animals that would strengthen what I consider to be a weak case against Maybrick. But of course all he did was allegedly poison a couple of dogs which doesn't really strengthen the case against him very much at all.

            Cheers John

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi, John (no relation to John "Wheaties", I hope!).

              What do you think of Victimology vs Methodology? It seems most here think a murdering husband makes a good suspect, poisoning and strangling being acceptable M.O.s.


              Methodology or M.O. doesn't sway me so much as Victimology. So it doesn't concern me that the dogs were poisoned, because the situation may have offered no alternative.

              It doesn't say what kind of dog it was, so I don't know if a killer, no matter how brazen and brutal, would approach it to kill it with a hand weapon.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                What do you think of Victimology vs Methodology? It seems most here think a murdering husband makes a good suspect, poisoning and strangling being acceptable M.O.s.
                To Maybea

                I think a murdering husband who uses a similar methodology to Jack makes a good suspect for example strangling or using a knife. Serial Killers rarely change there M.O. drastically so I don't see poisoning as anything to make someone a good suspect.

                Cheers John

                Comment


                • #38
                  To John and all,

                  The online percentages of animal abuse among serial killers range from 36 to 90 percent. I give the Ripper a 50-50 chance of being an animal abuser.

                  The only serial killer, I know of, who killed his wife is John Christie, but he killed his victims in his home so I don't consider him a good example.

                  Wouldn't the Ripper being a killer-husband be virtually unprecedented?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                    The only serial killer, I know of, who killed his wife is John Christie, but he killed his victims in his home so I don't consider him a good example. Wouldn't the Ripper being a killer-husband be virtually unprecedented?
                    To Maybea

                    What's wrong with Christie as an example as a serial killer who killed his wife? Plus what about Chapman he poisoned three of his wives? So I wouldn't say the Ripper being a killer husband is unprecedented.

                    Cheers John

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      G'day MayBea

                      The only serial killer, I know of, who killed his wife is John Christie, but he killed his victims in his home so I don't consider him a good example.

                      Frederick Deeming too.
                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hitler poisoned his dog Blondie just before he shot himself and we all know what a nice fellow he was.
                        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          The modern hoax theory is more limited - chiefly by the fact that Mike Barrett would have to be knowingly involved in some capacity
                          Is Barrett's complicity a necessary condition for a modern hoax, Caz? I don't think it is. He could have been duped by a modern hoax as much as by an old one.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Is Barrett's complicity a necessary condition for a modern hoax, Caz? I don't think it is. He could have been duped by a modern hoax as much as by an old one.
                            Hi Sam,nobody in their right mind would involve Mr Barrett in anything let alone a complicated hoax trust me
                            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by GUT View Post
                              Frederick Deeming too.
                              Deeming, like Chapman, only counts if you broaden the definition.

                              If one type of killer, such as domestic, is to be included as a good suspect, there should be others like them that fit without extending the definition of serial killer to include non-stranger murders and murder for personal gain, or limiting it just to anyone who kills three or more with a gap.

                              Then, as far as I know so far, you only have Christie. Whereas animal abusers among strictly-defined serial killers numbers in the dozens if not hundreds. Bundy, Ridgeway, Berkowitz, Dahmer, Kemper....

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                                Deeming, like Chapman, only counts if you broaden the definition.

                                If one type of killer, such as domestic, is to be included as a good suspect, there should be others like them that fit without extending the definition of serial killer to include non-stranger murders and murder for personal gain, or limiting it just to anyone who kills three or more with a gap.

                                Then, as far as I know so far, you only have Christie. Whereas animal abusers among strictly-defined serial killers numbers in the dozens if not hundreds. Bundy, Ridgeway, Berkowitz, Dahmer, Kemper....
                                To Maybea

                                I don't consider Deeming or Chapman good Ripper suspects by any stretch of the imagination in fact I consider them as weak suspects. However they were both serial killers wether you like it or not.

                                As reguards Serial Killers often abusing animals you would probably expect Jack to have abused animals and I'm not talking about poisoning a couple of dogs.

                                Cheers John

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X